The need for professional curiosity & responsibility in Stalking cases

Police misconduct was a feature of lessons to be learned in the murder of Shana Grice. There are many a lesson the police can learn from this case to prevent this type of misconduct from surfacing again. We are writing this blog post to show our respect to the memory of Shana Grice and send solidarity and support to her family.

Learning from a Police Misconduct Hearing*

The murder of Shana Grice

Shana Grice at the age of 19 was barely an adult at the time of her death. Shana was stalked and harassed by Michael Lane over a period of months after their break up. Given that we know Lane was reported to the police by thirteen other women for stalking, our experience tells us that Shana would very likely have been subject to high levels of coercive control from Lane during their relationship. Shana was clearly terrified of Lane and she was right to be. On the 25th of August 2016 Lane waited until Shana was alone, broke into her house and slit her throat^[1].

The investigations into possible misconduct by the police

Shana had turned to the police for protection and support on five separate occasions, but instead she was treated with suspicion, disregard and issued with a fine for wasting police time after she had reported Lane for stalking and harassment.

Timeline of reported stalking incidents

The timeline of reported incidents evidence that Shana was desperately reaching out to the police for help:

• On February 8th, 2016, Grice complained to police about being stalked by Lane after receiving unwanted flowers and damage to her car.
• On March 24th, Lane snatched her phone and grabbed her hair. He was arrested on suspicion of assault but later released and Grice was issued with a fixed penalty notice by the police for wasting their time by not disclosing she had been in a relationship with him.
• On July 9th, Lane used a stolen key to let himself into her home and watch her while she was apparently sleeping. She was actually awake, had heard his footsteps and hid under the duvet. She heard a man breathing in her room. Shortly afterwards, the man left, and when Grice looked out her window she saw Lane walking away. He was arrested for theft, given a police caution and told to stay away from Shana.
• The following day, she received around seven phone calls from a blocked number, including one with heavy breathing. She was told there were no further lines of inquiry and the case would be left on file.
• On July 12th, she reported to police that she was being followed by Lane. Police treated the case as “low risk”, but that the investigating officer would be made aware.
• On August 4th, she saw Lane loitering outside her home. She confided in her friend Joann Pumphrey that she was afraid that police wouldn’t believe her because of her previous fine for wasting police time. Although Joann was a witness to this, Shana didn’t report the incident to the police.

The police reaction to the misconduct

The police undeniably failed Shana and Sussex Constabulary have subsequently taken on the recommendations of the various investigations into their treatment of Shana and have hugely improved their responses to for stalking victims^{[2] [3]}.

Police Misconduct Hearing

One of those recommendations was a misconduct hearing against a now retired police officer, Mr Godfrey. Godfrey retired in 2017 on a full pension after 29 years of service. Godfrey’s involvement with Shana was in relation to the incident on 24th March, when Shana had reported Lane for assault and Mr Godfrey subsequently issued Shana a fine for wasting police time, he took just 84 seconds to relay this message to Shana. Five months later she was dead.

Godfrey spoke to the panel at his misconduct hearing on Monday 29th July 2019. Shana’s parents have spoken out about their views on the hearing being a ‘sham’ and they are clearly devastated that Mr Godfrey has not been found guilty of gross misconduct^[4].

Testimony at the Misconduct Hearing

We think his comments at the hearing are worth analysing further, particularly if lessons really are to be learned for officers still serving, the vast majority of whom will not want to repeat the same mistakes.

His testimony has been reported in several newspapers and include:

“The hearing was told that Godfrey was tasked with investigating an allegation of common assault on 25 March 2016 after Grice claimed Lane had chased and made physical contact with her.

During an interview, Grice made a number of other allegations against Lane, including that he had sent her flowers unsolicited and made numerous attempts to contact her. Lane was arrested and told Godfrey the pair were in a relationship, and provided details of mobile phone messages to back up his story.

Grice admitted she was having an affair with Lane, and in an 84-second phone call Godfrey told Grice she would be fined for wasting police time over the harassment allegations – a decision ratified by police bosses.

Godfrey stood by the decision when giving evidence to the misconduct panel. He said: “She [Grice] lied to police three times. It was only right I advised her she cannot keep lying in police statements and getting people arrested for it.”

James Berry, presenting the case against Godfrey, accused him of applying an inaccurate stereotype that a woman could not be at risk from a man with whom she was in a relationship.

Godfrey replied: “I don’t have those views … There was no history of violence between them, there was no evidence of violence, or risk, at that time.”

He said there was no sign of Grice being harassed. She had admitted that on one occasion Lane had waited outside her house late at night because she had arranged the meeting behind her boyfriend’s back.

Godfrey said: “She would be signing her texts [to Lane] with five kisses. This is not harassment. It was a smokescreen to disguise her affair.”

He said there was therefore no reason to supply Grice with safety advice regarding her relationship with Lane. “She was in an active relationship with him for six months. I can honestly say, hand on heart, there was nothing there to suggest she was in any form of danger whatsoever.”^[4]

“The hearing was told Mr Godfrey later informed Grice, during a phone call lasting less than a minute and a half, that her evidence of being harassed by Lane was discredited.

Mr Godfrey told the hearing: “Absolutely, she did waste my time. I arrested someone as a result of her evidence on a false allegation. She had committed a criminal offence.”

He said his colleague took the decision to give Grice a £90 fine.

“His decision, which I don’t disagree with, was that she should not be able to get away with making false statements,” he said.”^[5]

Understanding stalking

We wanted to go through Mr Godfrey’s claims in order to raise awareness and hopefully inform serving officers of the importance of understanding Stalking:

Claim 1

“She [Grice] lied to police three times. It was only right I advised her she cannot keep lying in police statements and getting people arrested for it.”

We do not see Shana as a liar. Survivors often do not tell the full story to people in authority because they are frightened, often for their lives. Had Godfrey used just a modicum of professional curiosity Shana might have begun to open up to the police about the risk she was in.

Claim 2

“…There was no history of violence between them, there was no evidence of violence, or risk, at that time.”

There was no evidence because Godfrey chose not to look for it. With care, empathy and a small amount of attention to detail Godfrey could have used his years of training to ask the right questions. To undertake a number of risk assessments and to search the police databases he had access to, in order to see that there was a plethora of evidence to enable him as a police officer to join up the dots against Lane and do the job he was paid for, which was obviously protecting Shana.

Claim 3

“She would be signing her texts [to Lane] with five kisses. This is not harassment. It was a smokescreen to disguise her affair.”

Ok, this is possibly one of the most ill-informed statements we have ever seen and we have seen a lot! We are sure that given his long standing career in the police, Godfrey would understand that taking things at face value can lead to assumptions being made. Perhaps, if Godfrey had taken a period of reflection, he may have looked at his attitude towards Shana, and assessed his own biases against a 19 year old girl, who was clearly at risk of murder and asked himself whether those five kisses were not a ‘smokescreen’ but a survival technique.

Survivors will do pretty much anything to keep the perpetrator calm and onside, particularly when they fear for their lives. We would suggest that Shana was using her own self-preservation and survival tactics to keep herself alive. It is a grave shame that Mr Godfrey wasn’t able to see past his own personal judgement that Shana was a nuisance and the perpetrator was the one being wronged. We would have hoped, given that Godfrey has had three years to reflect on his inaccurate assumptions of Shana, he would have adequate time to reflect on his actions in the case, but alas Godfrey came to the conclusion, even after Shana was murdered, that he was right in his decision making and still is.

As professionals, it is our responsibility to reflect on decisions that we make and think about how we could have done things differently, this is especially important after someone has been murdered and further, it is at the core of what a homicide review/investigation or serious case review is about. If we are to learn lessons, we as professionals must take responsibility for our actions, however difficult that process might be.

Claim 4

“….she should not be able to get away with making false statements”

We will say it once more, louder for the people at the back – We do not believe that Shana made false statements, she was not a liar, she was surviving and in doing so she had to tell only parts of the reality in order to stay safe. Perhaps Shana didn’t tell the police she was in a relationship with Lane because she felt she would not be taken seriously, perhaps Lane had told her again and again, nobody will believe you……perhaps the police response proved Lane right and left Shana at huge risk.

But more importantly – Godfrey seems incensed that people should be punished for making false statements. Let that sink in for a second….then remember…

Lane made false statements, repeatedly, and got away with it. Now Shana is dead.

Shonagh Dillon – CEO – Aurora New Dawn.

*all information evidenced in this blog post is readily available online.

Toxic masculinity is when the archetypal image of what it means to be masculine becomes harmful and aspirational. It thrives by penalizing behavior which does not conform to its standard and celebrating behavior which does.

Top 10 Toxic Masculinity behaviors

Being stoic

Men are constantly given the message that they must be self-reliant, independent, physically tough etc. Men are told that to be this way will make them successful in terms of business, society, and finding a partner. Being vulnerable will cause men to be ridiculed.^{[1] [2] [3]}

Being promiscuous

Typically, men will be praised by other men for sexual conquests. There is a well-known double standard regarding perceptions of male versus female promiscuity with men being praised by their peers and called ‘studs’ while rejecting women who have multiple partners and branding them ‘sluts’.^[4]

Championing heterosexuality as the unalterable norm

Many men are programmed to react negatively to the concept of homosexuality as it is a sign of deviating from the traditional male stereotype. Through popular rhetoric and from an early age when boys are learning about gender roles, men are taught that to be homosexual is to be less masculine.^[5]

Being violent

Statistically, men commit significantly more violent crime than women. There are numerous reasons for this, but there are clear links between male instigated violence and the need men have to use aggression and violence to prove their masculinity and bolster confidence in their masculine identity.^{[6] [7]}

Being dominant

To be preoccupied with power and dominance to a point that it causes harm to others, such as verbal, physical and online bullying. One study found that over a quarter of men thought they should have the final word in relationships, over a third of men believed that they had the right to know where their female partner was at all times.^[8]

Sexual aggression towards women

Men who conform to toxic masculinity standards are more likely to make sexual comments or sexist jokes to women, commit sexual harassment, accept rape myths and behave as if they are entitled to women’s bodies.^[8][9]

Not displaying emotion

Emotion is treated as being a feminine characteristic. Stifling emotion is seen as true manliness. From childhood, males are shamed to conform with the standard that to show emotion is weak and feminine.^{[10] [11] [12]}

Not being a feminist ally

It is unsurprising that the overly masculine would reject men who identify as the allies of feminists. Research shows that men engaging in feminist activism are the targets of harassment by men who prescribe to toxic masculinity as it is perceived as feminine and non-conformist to toxic masculinity.^[13]

Risk-taking

Connected to male dominance, toxic masculinity encourages taking risks to demonstrate dominance, men who buy into this are more likely to take extreme measures such as perpetrate violence, drive dangerously, gamble, abuse drugs.^[14]

Not engaging in household chores and caregiving

Again, housework and childrearing are seen as feminine qualities. Being asked to do a feminine deemed task such as housework, or worse, a man being criticised by a woman for not cleaning appropriately is often interpreted as an emasculating assault and provokes a masculine overcompensation response.^[15]

Who are we?

Aurora New Dawn is a feminist led charity dedicated to ending violence against women and children, and hidden violence. Since 2011, Aurora New Dawn has offered safety, support, advocacy, and empowerment to survivors of domestic abuse, sexual violence and stalking. We offer a variety of services and are involved in supporting feminist campaigns to end male violence against women.

Our work is guided by the principles set out in the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women or CEDAW, often referred to as an international bill of rights for women.

You can help Aurora raise vital funds to support victims and survivors of abuse:

Toxic Masculinity versus Femininity

Overall, as the previous behaviour shows, it can be seen that Toxic Masculinity will repeatedly reject femininity in all its supposed forms. When a man smashes against gender norms or supports femininity, it has a stigma attached. ‘Real men’ cannot behave in that way. If they do, these men will be abused, shamed or humiliated by a society embarrassed by the fact they are not conforming to masculine ideals.

This sends out a clear core belief of toxic masculinity: femininity is seen to be lesser than masculinity.

Why is it so bad for a man to exhibit what society quantifies as a feminine characteristic?

From showing emotion to carrying out household chores to supporting feminism, a man who does this is branded unmanly and rejected by toxic masculine followers. It seems bizarre, but when I do something as trivial as going to work and drink from my wife’s pink reusable coffee cup, I always receive a string of ‘friendly’ jibes from my colleagues… because it is pink… unbecoming of a man… and I must be less of a man for drinking from it.

Why is it that certain masculine-considered-qualities can be desirable while feminine ones are not?

When a young boy decides that he wants to look pretty and put on a dress then appear socially, he is often shamed and humiliated.^[12] Young boys are often guided by their parents away from expressing emotion or entering into open communication. All this an attempt by the parent to protect them from a negative social reaction, bullying or harassment.

Why is it that masculinity and femininity are not given the same equal value, why is it unacceptable for a child to wear whatever they want without being pigeon holed?^[16]

Toxic Masculinity versus Masculinity

Toxic masculinity corrupts the concept of what it means to be a man, misrepresenting it to society and encouraging/condoning appalling behaviour. It exists as a social construct that hides/excuses/dismisses it and enables it to continue. It is incredibly destructive to its followers. There are numerous findings on the negative impact of conforming to the aforementioned Toxic Masculinity norms:

• Men are more likely than women to engage in unsafe sexual behaviour and pursue multiple partners.^[17]
• Men have shorter life expectancy than women, are more likely to commit suicide or die at the hands of violent crime.^{[14] [18]}
• Men seek healthcare at much lower rates than women do.^[1]
• Men are less likely to complete college courses.^[19]

How can Toxic Masculinity be addressed?

In order to address the problem of toxic masculinity, it must first be recognised that it is a problem. Masculinity is not intrinsically a bad thing and can hold many aspirational characteristics, such as being the protector, being strong and courageous.^[19]Furthermore, studies have shown that masculine and feminine role models complement each other in childrearing.

But… and it is a big ‘but’, toxic masculinity holds no place in a civilized world. It is the worst embodiment of masculinity. It is masculinity on steroids and it is epidemic.

Violence and recognising it is a male problem

It is absolutely necessary to address the elephant in the room and acknowledge that there is a connection between issues such as violence and sex based oppression. Few will be surprised to hear that males commit nearly 90% of violent crimes in the USA.

“Physical aggression is a socially constructed gendered behaviour embedded in the social meanings of masculinities across many cultures. The general unwillingness of people to recognize that violence is a men’s issue is also reflected in the broader scientific literature.” Kilmartin & McDermott.^[20]

The link between toxic masculinity and domestic abuse

Aggression and violence in males are frequently attributed to the need for men to fulfil masculine ideals. These ideals being the distorted ones of toxic masculinity: supress emotion, assert dominance, defend your masculinity when threatened, use violence to prove your masculinity and exert power and control.

Men who conform to toxic masculinity norms are much more likely to engage in violence against women.^[21] This is further supported by the fact that in 2017, the World Health Organisation reported that 38% of murders of women were by an intimate male partner.^{[22] [23]}

How can we end toxic masculinity?

Those who conform to the toxic masculinity standard use the institutionalisation of toxic masculinity to protect their positions. By perpetuating its myth, by practising its values, powerholders can defend their positions in a male hierarchy. If men look up at hyper-masculine men with admiration, they will not criticise their behaviour.^[24]

It is only when men take a stand against this behaviour, reject aggression, dominance and all the other toxic masculine characteristics as masculine norms that the hierarchy will crumble.

Positive male role models

I think we can all agree with the American Psychological Association when they state:

“Boys learn to be men from the men in their lives, from their own experiences navigating our social norms, and from the large social and cultural context.”^[23]

Men are the disciples of toxic masculinity, men are the perpetrators of violence against women, men are responsible for taking stock of their actions and correcting their course.

We know that what is considered gender appropriate behaviour shifts over time, that what is deemed masculine or feminine is acculturated,^[25]men have the power to change their destiny and the identity of masculinity.

When boys look up to men, do we want them to imitate a culture of violence? Or to aspire to the best qualities of what it means to be a man? Where did all the gentlemen go?

Lap dancing is often dismissed as something harmless. But is it? Do we really want to live in a society that encourages the commodification of women? Especially in times of hardship. With the reopening of Elegance nightclub in Portsmouth, we explore this issue.

Ongoing objections to sexual entertainment venues in Portsmouth:

The Portsmouth City Council Licencing Sub Committee was held on 10/09/19 to consider the renewal of the license for a lap dancing club (a Sexual Entertainment Venue or SEV) in Granada Road, Southsea, in the city of Portsmouth.

The committee members included:

• Cllr Claire Udy
• Cllr Lee Mason
• Cllr Jason Fazakerly

Also present was Cllr Scott Payter-Harris

We only became aware of the license renewal for the Sexual Entertainment Venue (SEV), late last week. To be clear we have not been involved in this debate in the city for some time but following a few of our supporters urging us to add our voice again we lodged an objection.

Why our objection to the Portsmouth lap dancing club was refused

Our objection was refused by the Licencing Sub-committee on the grounds that we were too late in our submission and after information given to the committee on late objections, of which there were a few, the Licensing manager advised and the committee accepted that the late submissions were not materially different to the five objections given to the committee within the statutory time frame.

We respect this decision and given that it was the view of the committee and the Licensing manager that our objection offered no additional information we thought it pertinent to provide information on our submission and our thoughts on the license renewal below:

What is the Portsmouth Council’s view on Sexual Entertainment venues?

Our view on the licensing of sexual entertainment venues hasn’t changed since we fought alongside other residents in the city for a ‘Nil Cap’ in 2012.

The Council’s own SEV policy states: “that there is no place within the City of Portsmouth of which it could be said that it was situated in a locality in which it would be appropriate to license a sex establishment”. We understand that this decision was then subsequently amended in private by the licensing committee in 2012:

Draft SEV policy as set out ‘Option 2’:

Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 7.10 (relating to the numerical control on the number of sex establishments in a particular locality) the presumption to refuse shall not apply to:

• The renewal or variation of an existing sex establishment license; or
• The grant of a new sex establishment licence, whereby an application was made during the transitional period 1 November 2011 until 31 October 2012 to those premises that can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Licensing Authority that during the 12 months prior to the commencement of the transitional period they have been regularly providing sexual entertainment that previously was only regulated under the Licensing Act 2003.

The Nil Cap and Portsmouth lap dancing clubs

At the time of the Nil Cap introduction, we understood this to mean, in layman’s terms, that in effect, a nil cap was introduced, however, this did not apply to clubs with an existing license or those licensed and active in the period described. This is in direct contradiction to the previous decision and we lodged our complaint about this in 2012.

The impact of Sexual Entertainment Venues on Portsmouth women

We are now in seven years on and austerity has taken its toll on our city. Our previous objections remain.

By renewing or allowing the licencing of SEVs in the city the committee is advocating that in times of economic hardship, it is acceptable and expedient for the local authority to rely on the commodification of female residents to generate income. This is difficult to accept at the best of times, but again, it is even harder to understand given the Council’s previous consultation, policy and decision on the licensing of SEVs.

The link between Sexual Entertainment and Violence

Our organisation works every day with the end result of socially entrenched sexism, namely domestic abuse, sexual violence, and stalking. In the national and international women’s sector of which we are an active part, there is no doubt that the sexual objectification of women – as practiced in SEVs, for example – is directly linked to the incidence of sexual and domestic violence. To be clear, this is not a matter of opinion or conjecture. The link between the objectification of women and discrimination and violence towards women is recognised at an international level by the legally binding United Nations Convention to Eliminate Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which repeatedly calls upon states – including the UK government – to take action against the objectification of women.

The normalisation of porn culture and the objectification of women as a sex class is apparent every day in our society. As members of the End Violence Against Women Coalition, it is of note to refer to their research which evidences “that girls face intolerable levels of harassment in schools on a daily basis. Access to pornography while at school is commonplace and nude images are traded like football stickers. Outside the classroom, abuse of women and girls continues at alarming rates in our society: two women are killed each week by partners or former partners, and over half a million rape and sexual assaults happen each year in England and Wales.”

A survivor’s story

We are also encouraged and empowered by survivor campaigners like the indomitable, Sammy Woodhouse, a victim of the Rotherham child rape scandal and previous lap dancer who is calling for lap dancing clubs to be shut down due to her experience:

“I’m calling on council officials to actually go in and find out for themselves how these clubs are being run. When they are going in they’re finding these clubs are not safe at all, there is a lot of criminal activity going on and it’s something that needs to be shut down once and for all. I’ve lost count how many times myself and other people were sexually assaulted – that happens on a nightly basis. What you’re told is “you’re a lap dancer you’ve got to expect this”. No one should ever be expected to be touched, groped or assaulted. I know girls that have been drugged and raped. It’s almost as if the clubs are grooming the girls to think that the people who work in these clubs are like a tight family network and that they care about the girls, that they’re one big happy family…Essentially, they’re selling women – we’re in 2018 and people think it’s alright to go buy a woman for whatever sexual need it is? Do we want little girls growing up to be a lifeline for lonely old men? It’s exploitation”.

Our request to the Portsmouth City Council

We have requested information from the licensing team at Portsmouth city council, including, but not limited to, a record of the discussions held by the committee members and the due regard and analysis applied by the members to the Equality Act 2010 and the Public Sector Equality Duty in relation to sex as a protected characteristic. It is our strongly held view that the operation of SEVs does have a negative impact on women and girls as a sex class.

Moreover we would ask the council to reconsider their stance on SEVs and their operation in the city. What is the point of the council claiming they have a Nil Cap when in effect they have never actually applied this exemption?

Shonagh Dillon

CEO – Aurora New Dawn

Tommy Robinson, a special political adviser for UKIP, announced that should he be elected to the European parliament in the 23rd of May 2019 elections, he would voluntarily donate his MEP salary to victims of abuse. What’s not to like? As it turns out, a lot!

Open letter, from women and women’s organisations regarding ‘Tommy Robinson’ and his Euro Election Candidacy

Who is Tommy Robinson?

Born on the 27th of November 1982, in Luton, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, most commonly know as ‘Tommy Robinson’ is an anti-islam activist and former founder/leader of the English Defence League. Convicted of numerous crimes, and banned from Facebook and instagram for hate speech and insiting violence. Tommy Robinson made a bid to become an MEP for the northwest of England in the May 2019 elections.

What crimes has Tommy Robinson committed?

Tommy Robinson has served time in prison, been banned from football, made some disturbing comments to a 15 year old girl online, and been charged with a whole host of convictions. Listed here, are just some of his crimes.

In 2005, Mr. Robinson was given prison time for assault

Tommy assaulted an off-duty police officer who was attempting to intervene in a domestic incident between Tommy and his partner.

In 2011, he was charged with threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour

This was due to Mr. Robinson leading a street brawl with over 100 football fans. Police officers on scene described it as incredibly intimidating to members of the public.

Later in 2011, he received another assault charge

This was a charge of common assault which took place at an EDL demonstration in Blackburn.

In 2013, he was again sent to prison, this time for possession of a false passport

Tommy Robinson attempted to travel to the U.S using someone else’s passport, but was stopped at JFK airport.

Another count of fraud he was charged with in 2013 was mortgage fraud

Tommy was involved in a fraudulent conspiracy to obtain a mortgage through ‘misrepresentation’.

In 2018, Tommy Robinson was put into custody for breach of the peace

After an hour of Facebook live broadcasting, Tommy was arrested outside the Leeds Crown Court.

In 2019, Tommy was found guilty of being in contempt of court

This is due to ‘aggressively confronting’ the defendants on trial for grooming children and inciting his followers to do the same. It resulted in the case almost being thrown out of court.

We could go on about his criminal record, including drug abuse and football hooliganism, but you get the picture.

What was Tommy Robinson’s pledge to victims?

Tommy Robinson promised that, should he be elected an MEP, he would donate his earnings to victims of sexual grooming. It is our opinion that Mr. Robinson is not a role model for others to look up to and this offer exploited victims and survivors to further his racist agenda.

Who are the EVAW Coalition?

EVAW or the End Violence Against Women Coalition are a specialist group made up of support services, activists, survivors, research specialists and NGOs. The goal of the EVAW alliance is to put a stop to all manifestations of violence brought against women and girls.

The EVAW open letter

The EVAW composed an open letter to reject Tommy Robinson’s offer and our CEO is a proud signatory on this. Since this article was first written, Tommy Robinson’s bid to become MEP was defeated.

The open letter rejecting Tommy Robinson’s offer

Dear Media Editors,Community Leaders, MPs, Activists, Friends,

‘Tommy Robinson’, a man convicted of assault, rioting and fraud, a thug with a long history of making racist statements, has made a career out of causing trouble and division. He is now standing as an MEP candidate in the North West.

Tommy Robinson has made claims that, if elected, he will offer his salary to the child victims of what he terms ‘Muslim rape gangs’. We, as organisations and individuals fighting tirelessly against the abuse of women and girls, as survivors of abuse and their families, and as people who care about our communities, do not want your money, Tommy.

We are calling on the people of the North West to reject Tommy Robinson’s hatred, to register to vote and to turn out against him in the upcoming European Elections. He has no place as our elected representative.

Those who have suffered sexual and physical abuse were failed by those who should have protected them. But Tommy Robinson is no ally for the children he claims to stand up for. Tommy doesn’t care about the rights of women and girls – he is exploiting the pain of survivors and their families to fuel racist hate for his own gain. He is a misogynist and has recklessly put victims at risk for his own moment of the media spotlight.

Tommy Robinson’s factually incorrect messages about ‘grooming’, and his attempt to portray himself as a champion of the cause, are an insult to survivors of abuse.

They are also a profound insult to the women who have spent their whole lives building support services for survivors and working to ensure some cases finally got to court. Where were you during that work Tommy Robinson? The far right was never any part of this work.

We do not want a convicted thug and racist who does not truly care about abuse survivors on our ballot papers and we reject you Tommy Robinson.

In solidarity,

Sarah Green & Rachel Krys, Co-Directors, End Violence Against Women Coalition

Gurpreet Virdee, Co-Director, Women and Girls Network

Stella Dadzie, British Educationalist, activist, writer and historian

Shonagh Dillon, Founder and CEO, Aurora New Dawn

Pragna Patel, Director, Southall Black Sisters

Mary-Ann Stephenson, Director, The Women’s Budget Group

Maggie Parks OBE, Chief Executive, The Women’s Centre Cornwall

Diana Nammi, Executive Director, Iranian Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation

Amna Abdul- Children and Young People’s Lead, National Women’s Aid

Women’s March London

Akeela Ahmed MBE, founder, She Speaks We Hear

Aisha Ali-Khan, founder, Women United

Dr. Shola Mos-Shogbamimu, Lawyer and founder, Women in Leadership publication

Rachel Krengel, Intersectional Feminist Activist

Carys Afoko, founder, Level Up

Harriet Wistrich, Director, Centre for Women’s Justice

Marai Larasi MBE, Executive Director, Imkaan

Baljit Banga, Director, London Black Women’s Project

Christine McNaught, CEO, FWT Centre for women

Naana Otoo-Oyortey, Executive Director, FORWARD

Yvonne Traynor, CEO, Rape Crisis South London / Surrey Sussex

Dr. Miranda Horvath, Middlesex University

Natasha Walter, Feminist Activist and Author – Living Dolls

Gemma Snowball, DHR Team Development Manager, Standing Together Against Domestic Violence

Rebecca Vagi, Housing Manager, Standing Together Against Domestic Violence

Miranda Pio, Programme Manager and Policy Lead, Standing Together Against Domestic Violence

Professor Aisha K. Gill, Professor of Criminology Co-Chair of EVAW

Aisha Graham-Sharif-, Intersectional Feminist Activist

Philomina Azu, Intersectional feminist activist

Forida Khatoun, Equalities Campaigner

Shazia Shamim, Equalities Campaigner

Monsura Mahmoud, Equalities Campaigner

Shaista Aziz, Cllr Rose Hill and Iffley, Oxford

Professor Marianne Hester, University of Bristol

Professor Liz Kelly CBE, London Metropolitan University

Yasmin Rehman, Human Rights Activist

Dr. Fiona Vera-Grey, School of Law, Durham University

Jo Todd, CEO, RESPECT

Sara Kirkpatrick, RESPECT

Rasheda Ashanti Malcolm, Author and Domestic Abuse Specialist

Rachel Adamson, Director, Zero Tolerance

RMT Women’s Advisory Group

Signatory list accurate at the time of publishing.

Reviewing the case of Natalie Connolly

Along with many others, we have written to the Attorney General to ask for a review into the case of Natalie Connolly and the unduly lenient sentence given to her killer, John Broadhurst.

As ever our thoughts are with Natalie’s family and friends. We hope in some way we can help support them and bring justice to her. Her life meant something to them, and to us, and her death is currently the script of her killer.

You can write to the Attorney General at to ask for a review into this unduly lenient sentence at uls.referrals@attorneygeneral.gov.uk.

A copy of our letter

Dear Attorney General,

I am writing as the CEO of a charity that supports victims and survivors of domestic abuse, sexual violence and stalking in the South East of England. I have worked in this sector for over two decades.

I was shocked and saddened to see the case details of Natalie Connolly emerge this week and the sentence that was passed down to her killer, John Broadhurst. Broadhurst received three years and eight months. I am shocked and confused that this case was changed halfway through the murder trial to being tried under manslaughter. Given the circumstances of the case, I am further disappointed and appalled at what appears to be an unduly lenient sentence handed to Broadhurst by Justice Julian Knowles.

It is noteworthy that this sentence was handed down on the same day as the publication of the third Femicide Census, which evidences the murders of women in the UK over 2017 and the sheer impact and brutality that male violence has on women in this country.

Natalie received 40 separate injuries to her body. Including internal trauma, a broken left orbital bone, facial injuries and a bottle inserted into her vagina which broke and severed an artery.

The case appears to be one where the Justice system asserts that Natalie “consented” to being murdered. Natalie has been forgotten and justice has been denied of her. For example, Justice Knowles comments in his sentencing remarks:

“24. I cannot be sure that Natalie was not capable in fact of consenting, notwithstanding her extreme intoxication, and I will proceed on the basis that she did indicate her consent to being beaten by you with a shoe and with your hand.

25. I also accept that some of the injuries Natalie suffered, including the bruising to her head and the blow out fracture to her left orbit – which were probably her most serious injuries – may have been caused accidentally as she stumbled around in a heavily intoxicated state and collided with objects or caught herself in the face with her watch. I do not hold you responsible for those.”

I am concerned that the law has not been applied correctly here with particular reference to capacity to consent under the Sexual Offences Act 2003:

• Section 74 defines consent as ‘if he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice’. Prosecutors should consider this in two stages. They are:

“Whether a complainant had the capacity (i.e. the age and understanding) to make a choice about whether or not to take part in the sexual activity at the time in question.

Whether he or she was in a position to make that choice freely, and was not constrained in any way. Assuming that the complainant had both the freedom and capacity to consent, the crucial question is whether the complainant agrees to the activity by choice.

The question of capacity to consent is particularly relevant when a complainant is intoxicated by alcohol or affected by drugs….”

The statements by Justice Knowles appear to contradict themselves. How could Natalie be so intoxicated that in his view she was able to break her own bones from “stumbling around” yet in this intoxicated state she still, in his view, has the capacity to consent?

Broadhurst has shown no remorse in his treatment and killing of Natalie, he left her bleeding and dying at the bottom of the stairs, went to bed and slept. His words to the call handler when he did decide to call was that Natalie was “as dead as a doughnut”. The paramedics stated he showed no remorse for Natalie’s death.

Evidence was submitted to the jurors that Broadhurst was jealous and controlling and wanted to teach Natalie “a lesson” for chatting to other men. He certainly took control of Natalie’s life, he ended it. This is the ultimate control and the last use of power from a man who, in my view, saw Natalie as nothing more than his property to use, abuse, rape, mutilate and kill.

The only person’s voice that has been heard in this case is that of Broadhurst, a man whose behavior seems very typical of a predatory abuser in relationships. A man whose view of Natalie was so little he has written a script for his killing of her that blames her entirely and his script has been accepted by the justice system.

Victims and survivors will have seen this news. Victims and Survivors will read it. They will know that their version of Broadhurst is reading it too.

We, therefore, request a full in-depth review into the case of Natalie Connelly. Her death has affected many, not least her child, her siblings, her family, and her friends, but survivors everywhere. It is imperative that in honouring the life of Natalie, this case is reviewed and the right message is sent out to perpetrators of male violence against women.

Yours Sincerely,

Shonagh Dillon LLB

CEO – Aurora New Dawn

The Aurora Abuse Support Helpline and Referral Service

It is with great sadness that Aurora’s Abuse support Helpline and Referral Service ended on the 31^st March 2018, after 6 years of operation.  I have been so proud to be the manager of this service since its inception, and along with the CEO of Aurora New Dawn, I feel we created a service that offered a unique addition to both Aurora services and the other domestic abuse support services offered across the county.  I wanted to take time to write this blog to share my experience and to thank everyone who has been involved.

The start of the Helpline

The Aurora Helpline and Referral Service came into operation in August, 2012. As an organisation, we were conscious that DVA survivors in our local and surrounding area did not have access to a local independent Out of Hours specialist service.  This meant that the only option that survivors had if they needed support during the night or over the weekend, was to call the police or a national helpline service.  Not all survivors want police support at this time and whilst we appreciate and respect the work of the national support helplines, we wanted to offer a bespoke, localised triage option for survivors.

We also wanted to offer a referral pathway for services such as police, nurses and out of office emergency teams that could refer survivors of domestic abuse at the time of crisis. Our volunteers could engage with survivors immediately and offer emotional empathetic support as well as safety planning, risk assessing and onward referral to a specialist service in their area.

With this in mind the Aurora Helpline and Referral Service was ‘born’. At the time, it was an innovative service that offered a real opportunity for survivors to receive early support at a time when they needed it most and offered early access to specialist services providing wraparound support for them. The underlying premise was simple and evidence-based; there is a ‘window of opportunity’ when people seek help and if you offer support at that point, they are more likely to engage with support services and the criminal justice system (Domestic Violence Matters, 2005). This engages people quickly, improves their safety and reduces the likelihood of future incidents.

Who did the Helpline help?

Aurora supports both female and male survivors of domestic abuse but as per national and global statistics the overwhelming majority of survivors that came through our helpline were female, 96% and 89% of alleged perpetrators were male. These figures support and evidence the fact that domestic abuse is a gendered crime. The Crown Prosecution Service data (2014-15), shows that 93% of defendants in domestic abuse court cases are male, and 84% of victims are female with two women still being murdered due to male violence every three days in England and Wales (ONS, 2017)

Although I managed the service it was the volunteers that enabled every shift to happen every year even at Christmas and bank holidays since August 2012. Over that time, the helpline has been supported by 88 volunteers offering a service to 2460 clients. The volunteers offered their services for free and came from all walks of life. We have had volunteers from the University of Portsmouth, survivors of domestic abuse, health care professionals and community members who wanted to give something back. One thing all our volunteers have in common is that they care deeply about the survivors, are passionate about the work Aurora delivers, keeping the feminist ethos and model central to their work, and they are empathetic to our survivors’ experiences whatever stage of their journey they are on.  They want to help and support whether that is a listening ear, safety information or support to engage in the criminal justice system.  Our amazing volunteers have heard some very harrowing stories and yet they have dealt with all situations with professionalism in a person-centred way.

What our volunteers say:

“Volunteering for Aurora alongside my studies has allowed me to gain real-life experience in helping victims of DV that university could not provide. I will truly miss working with this service. My appreciation for this service is immense and I wish the ‘Aurora New Dawn’ community the best of luck for the future.  You’ve made my university experience phenomenal and for that, I cannot thank you enough.”

“Volunteering for Aurora has given me so much insight into how brave survivors are. Their resourcefulness never fails to inspire me. I love being on the helpline.”

What survivors say:

Survivor’s voice is a central part of all our service provision and we believe in capturing their experience to ensure our services are working for them, as such we undertake evaluations with all survivors. For the period of 2017 to 2018 completion of qualitative evaluations with clients using the helpline evidenced the following:

• 83% of clients said they had a greater understanding of risk
• 68% said they were satisfied with the police at the time of contact
• 100% said they had ‘an increased sense of wellbeing’ after speaking with our volunteers
• 100% of clients said that an out of hours’ helpline was important to them

The helpline and Portsmouth

The service has changed and developed over the last six years in line with new contracts and commissioning that has come into place, some of which Aurora has been lucky enough to be involved in. For the past three years, the service has been operating for Portsmouth City only and the core premise of our Helpline was, and remained, the safety of the survivors, how best we can support them and an easy access referral route for survivors and professionals out of hours. The overwhelming majority, 86%, of our referrals came from the police response and patrol officers in Portsmouth and we want to thank them for working in such close partnership with us and trusting us to make a difference to our shared client group.

Wishing the helpline goodbye

I have thoroughly enjoyed implementing; managing and at times being an on-call ‘volunteer’ throughout the six years. I feel huge sadness at the loss of this service but I equally feel very privileged and proud to have been part of such a simple process that engaged so many women at a point where they were ready to talk to us.

I wish to thank the volunteers for their dedication and unyielding support, the partner agencies who referred to us and to the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for funding the service. Most importantly I want to extend a MASSIVE thank you to all our brave survivors who trusted us with their stories and allowed us the time to offer them practical and emotional support.

The survivors are some of the strongest, bravest and most resilient people I have met and they always remind me that – Everyone is entitled to live a life free from violence and abuse.

I want to honour the survivors who trusted us and give the final words to them:

“The volunteer was amazing, kind and considerate when asking questions. The service has been really good and helpful. In the situation it’s really nice to have someone that doesn’t judge.”

“Overwhelmed with how much support was available, thank you.”

“Kind – great to speak to.  Genuine and caring and supportive people who understand the issues of DV.”

“Felt help straight away.  Helped recognise other forms of abuse and gained knowledge.”

“Help and explanation Aurora gave was brilliant.”

“Lots of support and felt very comfortable by knowing that there are services here to help.”

“Very supportive and encouraging, would give her [volunteer] the best rating – very high level.”

“They believed me and that is all I needed.”

Lyn Tiller

Aurora – Community Projects Manager

REFERENCES

Evaluation of Domestic Violence Matters; Dr. Liz Kelly et all 2011 and Home Office Research Study 290 Marianne Hester and Nicole Westmarland, University of Sunderland 2005.

Crown Prosecution Service, Violence against Women and Girls Crime Report, 2014–2015.

Office for National Statistics, Crime Statistics, Focus on Violent Crime and Sexual Offences, Year ending March 2016, Chapter 2: Homicide (Published online – Click here: Office for National Statistics, 2017)

A Foreword on Serial and Priority Perpetrators

In 2016, our Operations Manager, Zoë, completed her MSc in Criminology and Criminal Psychology. Her dissertation focused on the identification and management of serial perpetrators of domestic abuse in England and Wales. She won the Sage award for Best Masters Dissertation.

In the post below, Zoe shares some extracts from that dissertation, and her thoughts on the ways in which our approach to these offenders needs to improve.

What is a Serial perpetrator?

For clarity: The term ‘Serial perpetrators’ is usually used to refer to individuals who have used or threatened violence or abuse against two or more victims who are unconnected to each other (ACPO, 2009). Many commentators have argued that focusing solely on targeting these perpetrators (i.e. those who have more than one victim) might mean we ‘miss’ other areas of potential risk.

What is a Priority Perpetrator?

The term ‘Priority Perpetrators’ addresses this potential risk by encompassing serial perpetrators alongside those who repeatedly offend against the same partner, and also those engaged in high-risk abusive behaviours, regardless of the number of victims involved.

Tragedy? Or a Systematic Failure? Serial and priority perpetrators

In early 2018, there was extensive media coverage and widespread outrage surrounding the trial of Theodore Johnson, a man who pleaded guilty to murdering his ex-partner. What made this case so utterly shocking is that this was the third partner or ex-partner he has killed: the first was in 1981.

Shortly afterwards, The Guardian asked: “Is this a uniquely tragic triple crime, or a systematic failure to take domestic violence seriously?”

It is tragic, absolutely. But unfortunately, it is by no means ‘unique’.

Numerous examples

On 2^nd January 2012, the body of Claire O’Connor was discovered in the boot of her own car. Claire had died from blunt force trauma to her neck (McAteer, 2015, p. 10). In 2013, Aaron Mann – Claire’s ex-partner – was jailed for her murder (Dimmer, 2015). Mann had two known partners before Claire, with both relationships characterised by domestic abuse (McAteer, 2015, p. 12). He had numerous domestic abuse-related convictions and arrests against his name (McAteer, 2015, p. 14), along with several other incidents involving previous partners of which agencies were aware, but no official reports were made (McAteer, 2015, p.14). After identifying a number of failings in both risk assessment and risk management prior to Claire’s murder, the Domestic Homicide Review into Claire’s death posed the question:

“How are known perpetrators identified and how are the risks that they pose to others assessed? For example, an initial incident may not be serious, but if it is perpetrated by someone known to present high risks to partners, how can this be factored in and influence the overall risk assessment and risk management plan?”

(McAteer, 2015, p.76)

Two years later, on the 18^th February 2014, Hollie Gazzard was murdered by her ex-partner, Asher Maslin, at the age of just 20.  Hollie was stabbed 14 times in the neck, chest and torso, inside the hair salon in which she worked, in front of her colleagues, dying two hours later in hospital. Maslin, himself only 22 at the time of the murder, had a significant criminal history including violence in a non-domestic setting (Warren, 2015, p.19). His domestic abuse history was equally extensive, including a total of 24 violent incidents against 4 different individuals, 3 of whom were ex-partners (one being Hollie) and one of whom was his mother (Warren, 2015, p. 29). In the review into Hollie’s death, Warren (2015), observed:

“Paul [the review panel’s pseudonym for Maslin] had a long history of violence towards women…the review panel therefore concludes that if all the evidence had been known to any one agency, it would have been predictable that Paul would at some stage critically injure or kill someone”

(Warren, 2015, p. 43)

A History of Serial Abuse

Multiple other Domestic Homicide reviews (hereafter DHRs) continue to tell similar stories, highlighting a failure to both recognise, and manage, the risks posed by individuals with significant histories of serial and high-risk domestic abuse offending (See: South and Vale Community Safety Partnership [SVCSP] & Oxfordshire Safeguarding Children’s Board [OSCB], 2016; Ashman, 2014a, 2014b; Davis, 2016; Lundberg, 2014).

Theodore Johnson’s case is shocking, but it is not unsurprising to those working in the Violence and Abuse sector: this has long been an area of public protection work that requires urgent attention. Studies have demonstrated that up to 18% of domestic abuse perpetrators who re-offend do so against a different partner (Hester & Westmarland, 2006), and ACPO (2009) have estimated that there may be as many as 25,000 serial perpetrators of domestic abuse in contact with police at any one time in the UK. Research clearly demonstrates that without effective intervention, perpetrators of domestic abuse are likely to continue their behaviour (Hester & Westmarland, 2006, p.35; Sonkin, 1987 cited in Richards, Letchford & Stratton, 2008, p. 129) and, further, that abuse tends to escalate in both frequency and severity as it is repeated (Richards, Letchford & Stratton, 2008, p. 128).

Calls for Change

As such, calls for a more proactive response to these serial/priority perpetrators are not new. As early as 2004, Richards warned that prolific and serial domestic abuse offenders were, literally, ‘Getting Away With It’. In 2009, referencing Richards’ work, The Association of Chief Police Officers [ACPO] published their report ‘Tackling Perpetrators of Violence Against Women and Girls’. This report presented a number of recommendations to ensure the “wider recognition, and improved management, of serial perpetrators of violence against women and girls”, including that a register and tracking system be introduced in order to improve both the identification and management of these individuals (ACPO, 2009, pp. 29-34).

5 years later, however, and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary [HMIC] still noted that “most forces do not have a systematic approach to targeting repeat or prolific perpetrators of domestic abuse” (HMIC, 2014a, p. 106). Even when reviewing this position in the light of the 43 resulting force action plans, they concluded: “…these plans showed there is a lack of consistency around the management of serial perpetrators” (HMIC, 2015a, p. 96), and further, “very few forces include domestic abuse perpetrators in their Integrated Offender Management (IOM) process” (HMIC, 2015a, p. 96).

My Dissertation’s Findings

My own dissertation research, undertaken in 2016, reached similar conclusions. Through the use of requests to each of the 43 police forces in England and Wales, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I found that provision for both the identification and management of serial perpetrators of domestic remains inconsistent across England and Wales.

In England, for example, less than half of the police forces reported a clear process for both the identification and management of serial perpetrators. Just over a third (33%/n=13) detailed systems which, although not a total lack of provision, appeared to fall short of a process which would enable them to clearly and consistently identify serial perpetrators and to manage them as routine, whether alone or within a wider cohort of priority/high-risk domestic abuse offenders. 6 force areas in England reported having no identification or management processes in place, representing 15.4% of English forces without the ability to identify, monitor or manage serial perpetrators. Further, those forces with clear processes in place appear to be approaching the issue differently across different areas, with various combinations of approaches/projects and no one model appearing to directly mirror another.

In addition, only a small number of forces (Essex, Hampshire, North Yorkshire, and Northumbria) made specific reference to taking a multi-agency approach to this area of work or to making use of intelligence from partner agencies in their assessments of risk. This was particularly surprising given that multi-agency working is recognised as best practice nationally in terms of the response to domestic abuse (Home Office, 2014; Tapley, 2010). This failure to work collaboratively is at odds with the learning from multiple DHRs, which emphasise the importance of multi-agency working and information-sharing in this area (see, for example: Ashman, 2014b, p. 47; Home Office, 2013a; McAteer, 2015, p.73; SVCSP & OSCB, 2016, p. 45, 61). It also – crucially – fails to acknowledge that not all domestic abuse incidents are reported to the police.

Current Response to Serial Perpetrators

We are, however, beginning to see emerging pockets of good practice. The approach in Hampshire, for example, includes both direct work with offenders and a single point of contact (SPOC) service to assess, monitor and track serial perpetrators (Hampton Trust, 2016). Importantly, this response has been built around both multi-agency working, and cross-agency information-sharing, between the Domestic Abuse Prevention Partnership (DAPP), the police Offender Management HUB, and other key local agencies, including frontline domestic abuse services (Hampshire Constabulary, 2016b). Aurora New Dawn is proud to be a part of DAPP, and to work alongside both The Hampton Trust and Baseline Consultancy in pushing forward the response to serial/priority perpetrators in the County.

Another example of co-ordinated work in this area is the DRIVE project, currently being run by Safelives across two pilot sites, and designed to “challenge the behaviour of perpetrators, and co-ordinate the response they receive across all agencies.” (Safelives, 2016). DRIVE targets serial and repeat perpetrators, providing a one-to-one intervention with the aim of promoting long-term behavioural change (Safelives, 2016). Whilst the two approaches are different in design, the DRIVE project, like the Hampshire response, is quite clearly committed to “a multi-agency response to domestic abuse with partner agencies” and “sharing information, both within and between agencies about people at risk of experiencing or perpetrating domestic violence and abuse.” (Safelives & Social Finance, 2015, pp. 5-6)

How to tackle Serial Perpetrators

Despite these pockets of localised good practice, the fact remains that there is currently no formalised legal framework or national process by which serial perpetrators are routinely identified, monitored and managed in England and Wales. It is this that needs to change, and urgently. A co-ordinated approach is required – mandated at a national level, and robustly led locally – which focuses on placing responsibility on serial/priority perpetrators for their behaviour and, crucially,  on disrupting their offending. In order to do this, we need clear national guidelines, borne from the sharing of best practice and examples of models that demonstrate ‘what works’ in terms of effective identification and management.

I would go further, however, and argue that one of the key ways in which we can make strides in this area is through the creation of a register for serial perpetrators, operating along similar lines to the sex offenders register. Both ACPO (2009) and Paladin (2014) have proposed this response, and calls for implementation continue to grow, with a petition to this effect amassing 135,000 signatures to date. Whilst a register is not a solution in itself, it absolutely offers the potential to drive forward a cultural shift, a sense of national consistency, and a more proactive policing response to those who pose the highest risk of harm (Paladin, 2014, no pagination).

Ultimately, when we are looking to keep victims safe, this is not an ‘either/or’ situation. The proactive targeting of priority perpetrators must be included in work to tackle domestic abuse, and it is crucial that this forms part of a collaborative response alongside specialist, well-resourced victim services.

In short, our response to this cohort of dangerous offenders must be substantially improved if we are to have the chance of reducing both the costs – and the impact – of domestic abuse over the coming years:

“Tracking, responding to and dealing with serial perpetrators is less well developed as a method of protecting victims. This is just starting to change but the circumstances of this review underline the need for it. The learning from this review stems almost entirely from the knowledge of events and interventions in the perpetrator’s 2 previous relationships. This is fitting as it contributes to a growing body of knowledge that suggests tracking and management of serial perpetrators has a significant role in protecting future potential victims.” – Domestic Homicide Review into the death of ‘Ms Z’ (Ashman, 2014a, p. 5)

Aurora’s Position on Serial Perpetrators

We at Aurora believe it is imperative to tackle the continued serial abuse of perpetrators in order to better protect victims and survivors. By continuously putting the onus on the victim, perpetrators continue to abuse multiple victims, their abuse escalates and the endpoint for many of their victims is death. This is about murder prevention.

You can sign the petition for a register of serial stalkers and domestic abuse perpetrators here.

REFERENCES

Ashman, J. (2014a). Domestic homicide review 001 (Executive Summary). Retrieved from the Lambeth Council website: www.lambeth.gov.uk

Ashman, J. (2014b). Domestic Homicide Review 001 (Overview Report). Retrieved from the Lambeth Council website: www.lambeth.gov.uk

Association of Chief Police Officers [ACPO]. (2009). Tackling perpetrators of violence against women & girls: ACPO review for the Home Secretary. Retrieved from the ACPO website: www.acpo.police.uk

Davis, M. (2016). Child D: A serious case review overview report. Sutton Local Safeguarding Children Board. Retrieved from: http://www.suttonlscb.org.uk/seriouscasereviews.php

Dimmer, S. (2015, May 14). Nuneaton mum killed by violent ex-partner felt police were ‘powerless’ to stop him. Coventry Telegraph. Retrieved from: http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/nuneaton-mum-killed-violent-ex-partner-9255367

Hampton Trust. (2016). DAPP: Domestic Abuse Prevention Partnership. Retrieved from https://www.hamptontrust.org.uk/our-programmes/dapp/.

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary [HMIC]. (2014a). Everyone’s business: improving the police response to domestic abuse. Retrieved from www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary [HMIC]. (2015a). Increasingly everyone’s business: improving the police response to domestic abuse. Retrieved from www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk

Hester, M. & Westmarland, N. (2006). Domestic violence perpetrators. Criminal Justice Matters, 66(1), 34-35. DOI: 10.1080/09627250608553400.

Hester, M., Westmarland, N., Gangoli, G., Wilkinson, M., O’Kelly, C., Kent. A., & Diamond, D. (2006). Domestic violence perpetrators: identifying needs to inform early intervention. Bristol: University of Bristol in association with the Northern Rock Foundation and the Home Office. Retrieved from www.nr-foundation.org.uk

Lundberg, B. (2014). Domestic Homicide Review under section 9 of the Domestic Violence Crime and Victims Act 2004. In respect of the death of a woman B-DHR2012/13-04. Birmingham Community Safety Partnership. Retrieved from the Birmingham Community Safety Partnership website: http://birminghamcsp.org.uk/admin/resources/bdhr-2012-13-04-final-published.pdf

McAteer, K. (2015). Domestic Homicide Review overview report (DHR NB01). Report into the death of a domestic homicide victim on 2^nd January 2012. Nuneaton & Bedworth Community Safety Partnership. Retrieved from: https://apps.warwickshire.gov.uk/api/documents/WCCC-671-68

Richards, L. (2004). Getting away with it: a strategic overview of domestic violence sexual assault and ‘serious’ incident analysis. London: Metropolitan Police. Retrieved from http://www.dashriskchecklist.co.uk

Richards, L., Letchford, S., & Stratton, S. (2008). Policing Domestic Violence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Safelives. (2016, February 17). New Project to hold perpetrators of domestic abuse to account. Retrieved from http://www.caada.org.uk/drive

South and Vale Community Safety Partnership & Oxfordshire Safeguarding Childrens Board. (2016). Child J – Domestic Homicide Review and Serious Case Review (combined). Report into the death of child J aged 17. Retrieved from www.oscb.org.uk

Tapley, J. (2010) Working together to tackle domestic violence. In A. Pycroft & D. Gough (Eds.) Multi Agency Working In Criminal Justice (pp. 137-153). Bristol: The Policy Press.

Warren, D. (2015). Domestic Violence Homicide Review Overview Report into the death of Rosie (Pseudonym) on 18^th February 2014. Tewkesbury Borough Community Safety Partnership. Retrieved from www.tewkesbury.gov.uk

Bidirectional violence, a foreword

Before we examine bidirectional violence, it is important to ask: How does a relationship evolve to be abusive? Does it take deliberate acts by one person against another to gain power and control bit by bit?

In my view an abusive relationship is every single section of the Duluth Power and Control Wheel:

Intimate Partner Terrorist

Acts of coercion, intimidation, emotional abuse, behaviours aimed at degrading, destroying and humiliating the other person to gain control. How is this control exerted? By the presence, use or threat of physical and sexual violence. Practitioners and survivors may be familiar with the term ‘intimate partner terrorist’ because that is what they are. Holding every person in that home to ransom in exchange for their emotional worth, their self-esteem and any desire to leave.

Three types of Perpetrator

Johnson (2006) after extensive research devised three terms to explain the subtypes of perpetrator that might be seen in intimate partner violence. These three terms include the intimate partner terrorist detailed above, violence resistance and situational couple violence. The term violence resistance denotes victims who in the face of further abuse, use learnt behaviours to protect themselves and behave violently for self-preservation. Differentially, situational couple violence is a term coined to describe toxic relationships in which there is violence but this is not about gaining power and control over the other person. Misunderstanding these terms can drastically increase risks to victims. Johnson himself stresses that the most dangerous of all abuse is intimate partner terrorism, which Aurora asserts is the real essence of what we are naming when we talk about domestic abuse.

The term ‘bidirectional violence’

In recent months, I have seen a new terminology being used. The term bidirectional violence has become common parlance in some multi-agency meetings. The term has been generated to capture relationships in which both parties use violence and/or abusive behaviours to one another. The term suggests that a single primary aggressor cannot be identified. My question then is how would a survivor feel? Particularly those who begin to resist and fight back, knowing that their acts of self-defense, their attempts at protecting themselves, their use of learned aggression against the perpetrator are seen as a balanced form of intimate partner violence?

How a relationship can evolve into bidirectional violence

Imagine knowing the mood of the perpetrator and being able to predict whether it is physical violence, verbal abuse, control tactics or the threat of a sexual assault that is brewing. However, one day out of fear you assault the perpetrator to protect yourself and the children. But this time they contact the police and you find yourself being arrested. The perpetrator actively claims victim status, giving details of all the times there have been other violent incidents. The normal safeguarding won’t apply to you now, because you have been a victim and are now a perpetrator. The perpetrator might get a visit from the safeguarding agencies, who will offer them support. Imagine then, that at the next multi-agency meeting, your experiences of control, psychological abuse, serious physical and sexual violence are reduced to ‘bi-directional’ violence.

What are we really saying? That she is as bad as him? Six of one, half a dozen of another. Frontline practitioners within Aurora would always be of the opinion that attitudes like this are archaic and patriarchal. We absolutely do not condone violence in any form. However, it is important in our work to explore the situation with a survivor who is beginning to fight back. We understand why this might happen, but we plan with them to ensure this doesn’t occur for the future safeguarding of everyone linked to the abuse, including the perpetrator. Some of our advocates have worked with women who have killed their partners in self-defense and the ramifications of this are lifelong.

Most importantly, if we don’t explore, we ignore the voice of the victim. Many survivors of abuse are likely to try and predict the violence, placating the perpetrator and doing what is necessary to avoid more serious injury. What the victim hears is that we do not understand her experiences. We ignore the gendered nature of domestic violence, we don’t delve deeper into the power and control in that relationship and we do not identify who the primary aggressor is. We completely overlook the victim’s experience and buy into the perpetrators narrative about ‘her being as bad as him.’

An example of bidirectional violence mislabelling

To evidence this point home further, January 8th 2018 saw the release of the Domestic Homicide Review into the murder of Katrina O’Hara on 7th January 2016 by her former partner (Mellor, 2018). The first police response into domestic abuse within this relationship was made on 10th November 2015 when both parties alleged they had been assaulted. The victim admitted to throwing some of the perpetrator’s stuff around. Within 58 days of making this report, the victim had been murdered. The DHR review made multiple recommendations but of note was point 6.9 which concluded that the first police attendance was mislabelled. Reviewing Police Officers determined that that the victim was ‘very much the perpetrator’ which changed the course of police responses. Ultimately, the victim’s confidence in the agencies tasked to protect her was undermined and she paid for this with her life.

How should we see bidirectional violence?

Domestic abuse is gendered. It affects disproportionately more women than men; two women die a week at the hands of abusive partners (Brennan, 2016). I urge frontline practitioners to consider this the next time you hear the term bidirectional violence. Use it as an opportunity to educate others and consider investigating further into what is really happening in that home. It’s important to understand that victims don’t generally shout about their victimhood, they minimise the behaviour, they make excuses for the perpetrator. They rarely if ever, shout about the abuse.

One way in which you can assess the legitimacy of counterclaims is to refer to the DYN project assessment ‘identifying legitimate victims’ (Robinson & Rowlands, 2006 pp34-35).

Perpetrators are incredibly good at getting professionals to collude with their behaviour. They can and will be very plausible. Let’s not allow them to use us in their power and control games against victims.

#HerNameWasKatrina

Hayley – Serial and Priority Perpetrator Co-ordinator – Aurora New Dawn – (Domestic Abuse Prevention Partnership (DAPP)).

*Hayley is a qualified probation officer and worked for the National Probation Service for twelve years before joining the Aurora team two years ago.*

References:

Brennan, D. (2016). The Femicide Census: Annual report on cases of Femicide in 2016. Women’s Aid Federation.

https://1q7dqy2unor827bqjls0c4rn-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/The-Femicide-Census-Report-published-2017.pdf

Katrina O’ Hara DHR

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/domestic-abuse-police-katrina-ohara-failings-dorset-phone-taken-attacker-stuart-thomas-stalking-a8148726.html

Mellor, D. (2018) Domestic Homicide Review. “Sarah.”

Overview Report. Dorset: Dorset Community Safety Partnership

Johnson, M. P. (2006). Conflict and control: Gender symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence. Violence against women, 12(11), 1003-1018.

Robinson, A., & Rowlands, J. (2006). The Dyn Project: Supporting Men Experiencing Domestic Abuse (pp. 34-35). Cardiff.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.538.716&rep=rep1&type=pdf

What is the 25th of November?

The 25th of November is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women (IDEVAW). In the violence against women sector, the 25th of November is not marked on the calendar. There is no need, the 25th is etched on the mind of every frontline worker.

International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women

For those of us who work every day with victims and survivors of violence against women, it is vital to mark this day every year until the violence and abuse is eliminated. Not only is this day vital to raising awareness of the ongoing violence, but also to bring into the spotlight the scale and nature of this often hidden violence.

When did the 25th of November begin?

The start of IDEVAW

The history of IDEVAW stretches back to July 1981 at the Feminist Conference for Latin American and Caribbean Women in Bogota, Colombia. Feminist activists at the conference declared the 25the of November an international day of protest to rally against violence towards women, in memory of three sisters from the Dominican Republic, Maria Teresa, Patricia and Minerva Mirabel, who had been murdered for their involvement in political activism.

IDEVAW gets recognised

In 1999, the United Nations General Assembly (UN) designated the 25th November as the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. Governments, international organizations and NGOs were invited to organize activities on that day to raise public awareness of the problem.

Violence against women is a pandemic

And as someone who works in this field every day, violence against women is not just a problem. It’s a pandemic.

Why do I say that? Let’s look at what we know.

Violence against women, the global scale

The UN monitors global violence against women as part of its Sustainable Development Goals, a set of 17 global goals covering a range of social issues like poverty, education, social justice and gender equality. In the UN’s 2017 report on Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals, 19 percent of women between 15 and 49 years of age said they had experienced physical and/or sexual violence by an intimate partner in the 12 months prior to the survey. The survey covered 87 countries using data from 2005 – 2016.

In the most extreme cases, this violence kills women. The UN report states that in 2012, almost half of all women who were victims of intentional homicide worldwide were killed by an intimate partner or family member.

How does this relate to women in the UK?

Violence against UK women

The Femicide Census compiled by activist Karen Ingala Smith details the names of every woman murdered at the hands of men each year. In 2015, the Census documented: “at least 138 UK women are known or suspected to have been killed by men in 2015.  138 women dead in 365 days is one woman dead every 2.6 days”.

The first woman on the list was killed on 6th January 2015, her name was Natalia Czekaj, and she was 34. Natalia was stabbed to death and almost decapitated by her boyfriend James Richardson, 34. He received a 6-year sentence for manslaughter.

The last woman on the list for 2015 was killed on 30th December 2015, her name was Katy Rourke, she was 25. Gary Stevenson, 26, her flatmate, stabbed Katy 3 times after she declined his sexual advances. He received a 17-year sentence.

Natalia, Katy and every woman murdered by men in the hundreds of days between deserve to be remembered. They not only deserve a day to honour and remember them, but they also deserve a pledge from each of us still living to prevent further women being killed at the hands of men who perpetrate violence as part of a broader need for power and control.

In the UK, across the world, violence against women is so widespread, the reality and threat of it permeates every woman’s existence, shaping her choices and curtailing her freedom like an invisible chain.

Evidence of violence against women

And in case you doubt this, government statistics published in 2013 show that:

• Approximately 85,000 women are raped in England and Wales alone every year.
• 1 in 5 women aged 16 – 59 has experienced some form of sexual violence since the age of 16
• Only around 15% of those who experience sexual violence choose to report to the police
• Approximately 90% of those who are raped know the perpetrator prior to the offence

Eliminating violence against women

The statistics are overwhelming but don’t think for a second that you can’t make a difference to ending violence against women because there are lots of ways that you can.

This 25th of November

IDEVAW this 25th marks the start of the annual 16 Days of activism to end violence against women and girls, starting this 25th of November and ending on Human Rights Day on 10th of December.

How you can help IDEVAW

Here’s just some ways to make a difference on IDEVAW and throughout the 16 Days.

Talk about it. Share it on your social media. Break the silence. The more we all name this pandemic for what it is, the less power and control perpetrators have over their victims.

That one tweet or post on Facebook that you share could make all the difference to someone you know, or someone you’ve never met; someone who lives every day frightened, scared and silenced. Every time we break the silence, we start to weaken the voice of a perpetrator who maintains his control over a victim by telling her, ‘Nobody will believe you.’

So let’s shout as one voice. I know this is a difficult subject but shying away from it only adds to the problem. Our team at Aurora – like so many frontline services for women across the country – will be marking the 25th of November and pledging our commitment to eliminate violence against women. We believe spreading the word can make such a difference.

On the 25th and for the 16 days beyond, you can be that difference. Join us.

#IDEVAW #16Days

You can also find out more about the 16 Days campaign by exploring UN Women’s digital library.

Shonagh Dillon

CEO – Aurora New Dawn

Dear 40 Days for Life,

I write to you to appeal to your better judgment, to your Christian values and to your human kindness. I understand you are targeting St Mary’s Community Health Campus over the next 40 days as the location of a series of daily ‘vigils’ where you are praying to ‘transform individuals and communities’. I read on your website that through prayer you hope to bring the ‘beginning of the end of abortion in our city – and beyond.’

Let me be clear, I don’t have a problem with praying, or with your God, or with you having an opinion that’s different to mine. It’s clear you believe you are right, so arguing that you’re wrong seems pointless. We would only end up going in circles. On the issue of abortion, I think it’s fair to say that feminists and the religious right fundamentally disagree and that’s our right, isn’t it, as members of a democracy? So I’m not going to try to change your mind.

In fact, though it may seem strange to you, I suspect we actually have a lot in common – it’s often the case on both sides of a heavily contested argument. After all, both sides are used to having to defend our positions to others, although I must confess, I’ve never had quite your confidence to assert that my opinion is endorsed by God.

For example, as a feminist I’m used to being challenged. I’m used to hearing misinformation, stereotypes and false assumptions about my beliefs – and I’m sure you are too. I am used to having to defend my ideology on a regular, if not daily, basis and I spend large amounts of time fighting for my beliefs: in my case, the rights of women to live free from oppression, including the right to control our own bodies. I imagine your commitment and determination echo that of feminist activists like me.

I’m not here to change your mind on abortion. And I don’t need to, because the 1967 Abortion Act made abortion legal for women up to their 24^th week of pregnancy. Instead, what I’m asking is for you to consider the methods you’re using to fight that law.

Specifically, I’m asking you to take a step back from protests outside abortion providers like the clinic at St Mary’s Community Hospital in Portsmouth run by the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS). Like BPAS, I’m asking you to Back Off:* to pray in your own space, or indeed, any space other than outside an abortion provider.

I’m asking you to understand that just as it isn’t my right to tell you your beliefs are wrong, it is not your right to attempt to emotionally manipulate, intimidate or scare women on a day that is already difficult enough. And let’s be clear how many women we’re talking about here, because a third of women in the UK will have an abortion before they are 45 years old.

I’ve read your website, I’ve seen your campaign materials, and I know that you will already be preparing arguments about the rights of a foetus over-ruling the rights of women. You will tell me that the reason an abortion is difficult for a woman is because abortion is wrong. I understand that your religious beliefs support these views.

But beyond your beliefs is a reality that – after 20 years of working in the field of women’s rights – I know very well. The reality is that you and I have no idea why any of the women walking through the doors of an abortion provider came to that decision. And frankly, there is no human on the planet who has the right to know; it’s between that woman and her God, should she believe in one. It is not between a woman and a small number of self-appointed representatives of the Lord on Earth.

And I am delighted that the majority of the British public feel the same way. According to the British Social Attitudes Survey, public support for abortion on the grounds that a woman does not wish to have the child has increased from 60% to 70% since 2005. The percentage rises to 93% if the woman’s life is in danger (and remember what I said, nobody apart from her knows the reason a woman makes the choice to have an abortion).

Not only do most of the British public not agree with your interpretation of religion, neither do the majority of Catholics. Between 1985 and 2016, Catholic support for abortion if a women doesn’t want the child almost doubled from 33% to 61%. Even the Pope has had cause to reconsider the unrelenting, unforgiving attitudes historically held by the Catholic church towards the many women of faith who have made the difficult decision to walk through the same doors you now stand outside.

Protesting – for both of us – is our human right and a central pillar of our democracy. But it should not be used as a tool for causing suffering to those we disagree with. So, I’m asking you to think again.

Give these women the privacy they need on the one day they really need it. To do so is an act that demonstrates the compassion and respect most of us understand to be at the heart of Christianity.

Doing so won’t affect your right to protest one bit. You can hold signs, and pray and sing hymns away from the clinic of an abortion provider, you will still have your say. It will make no difference to your message, but it will make every difference to a woman in pain who wants – and needs – the privacy and respect that is due to her when exercising a legal right won 50 years ago.

So please, I’m asking you to change your tactic and exercise your legal right to protest by lobbying Parliament instead of intimidating women, there is a tip and clue here for you, this is the way my social movement won the rights you protest against today.

I hope you do, and if you do, look for me. I’ll be the woman standing with a horde of sisters and supporters carrying banners that bear messages the opposite of your own. We’ll meet and disagree on an even playing field of open debate and tolerance, rather than on the side-lines of another woman’s suffering.

I can’t wait to see you there.

Shonagh Dillon

CEO – Aurora New Dawn

 

Additional reporting by Sarah Cheverton – Editor in Chief Star & Crescent

*Aurora New Dawn are official supporters of the BPAS campaign you can sign up to support them here