“Ministers recognise and frequently pay tribute to the progress which many police forces have made in addressing domestic violence effectively, reducing repeat victimisation and providing an appropriate service to survivors. It is important to maintain and develop this work. They commend this Circular for careful study by both operational officers and their managers, with a view to further improvement through increased awareness, knowledge and understanding and through the implementation of its recommendations. …” “1. Nature & Extent of Problem The dynamics of abusive relationships are complex. Generally, one individual tries to assert domination over other individuals. Domestic violence is an abuse of power and control, and the process of repeated intimidation, violence and abuse results in vulnerability. This is particularly pertinent where people who are physically and mentally ill, or are elderly, are concerned.” “5. Force Policy Force Policy on domestic violence should be issued. This should give guidance to officers on how the force prioritises the issue, what standards of investigation are expected and procedures that must be followed. Force policy is integral to the setting of standards and influencing the attitudes and behaviour of officers.” “7. Action after the incident Many victims of domestic violence have stated that they did not wish to feel responsible for taking their assailant to court. However, they do not want to be the subject of further violence. The police must remain impartial and uphold the law. If the evidence is present, whether or not including evidence from the victim, then a charge or summons should be preferred, unless there are exceptional reasons. Such reasons should be recorded. The decision on prosecution is for the CPS, who will act in line with their published policy statement, taking account of the realistic possibility of a conviction and of the public interest. If there are exceptional reasons why a prosecution does not take place, again these must be recorded. Officers must bear in mind too that a victim may decide to provide a statement and give evidence at a later stage. In all cases a victim is entitled to a sympathetic response and proper support.” “16. Conclusion The police service has significantly improved its response to domestic incidents in the last decade. There will be increasing reports of such offences as victims become more confident in how they are treated by the police. It is imperative that the police deal effectively with domestic violence from the beginning. Not only will this provide a better standard of service to the victim but also change attitudes so that domestic violence is no longer regarded as acceptable.”
“D Guidance to the police including an Investigator’s Guide 30. As part of our response to the findings of the Research Study this Circular offers guidance specifically for the police, which has been drawn up with the help of the Association of Chief Police Officers. Apart from the high-level guidance immediately below, we also attach more detailed guidance in the Annexes to this Circular. We are grateful to the Association of Chief Police officers for their work on this and commend it to you.”
“Caller reporting she is being harassed by her ex boyfriend. [AB] … This is still ongoing and caller belies he could be on his way to her h/a – she is there with her mother – who is also receiving hassle from [AB] She states he has flipped again and threatened to smash his car up unless she goes and sees him Caller is crying and very distressed”
“[The First Claimant] states that her ex partner [AB] has been ringing her constantly on her mobile as he wants to talk to her about things that happened in his childhood. As this is her mothers house and he knows she stays there sometimes he has also been ringing the house phone and sometimes been verbally aggressive towards her mum. She and another male called [CD] who lives in Southampton (a businessman) have been trying to help [AB] get help for his problems. [AB] was with [CD] in Southampton this evening & [First Claimant] was worried he would come to the house but [CD] advised her whilst we were there that [AB] was quite calm and he would not be going to her house. As mum is sometimes at home alone have advised that if [AB] does turn up at property to contact us straightaway and not to enter into any conversation with him. Also advised to keep a list of any phonecalls rec’d.”
“Inf adv that she had recd approx 50 calls in the last 12 hours and is fearful of the male coming around. Whilst on the phone the male has called again and is demanding that he wants to speak to her and won’t take no for an answer Inf wants to know that if he comes around the house that she can call 999 as she does fear for her and her mother’s safety Assured the aggd that if he does attend we will deploy asap”
“An officer attended to inft’s address last night because inft has been receiving threats from an ex partner. Inft states this has continues this am and it is getting worse, since 0800hrs he has not stopped calling, texting etc. Inft states because they are ignoring as advised and he is getting very frustrated. The last couple of msg’s are “If you do not see me I will f??k you” and “If you do not see me, I will hurt you and yes show this one to the law”
“At 10:58 (as she was on the phone to me) she received another text message which reads:- “Because your mother is getting in the way, I am happy to spend my life inside for taking her life.”
“I have repeatedly tried to tell AB that I want no further contact from him and he has continued to ignore this. I initially tried to ignore his incessant calls in the hope that he may accept that our relationship has ended. It is my belief that he needs help for his problems. However it is clear that he will do nothing but continue to harass me without my taking action. The level of distress that this is now beginning to cause me has begun to affect my health and this together with the fact that AB has now begun to involve my mother in his harassing and threatening behaviour means that I now have to pursue this matter formally. [AB]’s behaviour has reached the point where we are fearing for both our safety, and bearing in mind his erratic mood swings and obsessive behaviour, I believe that there is a possibility that AB could carry out his threats towards my mother. I cannot allow this to continue and I am willing to support a court prosecution if required.”
“Does the person making this statement need additional support as a vulnerable or intimidated witness? If ‘Yes’, please enter details on Form MG2.”
“Hello [the First Claimant] I love you I am coming to see you guys. You guys can call the police if you want I need to talk to [the First Claimant] and thats all I want to do if you feel I’m coming to kill you guys thats up to you. Thats because I ... I dunno. Whatever, thats up to you. I’m coming to talk to [the First Claimant], get anyone you want if it makes you feel better. I’m going to speak to you.” (2) A telephone call made by AB about 9.52 am which the Second Claimant answered. AB said: “I suggest you leave the house now, I will fuck her up if she does not speak to me” (3) A text message which AB sent to the First Claimant at about 10.50 am, which contained words to the effect of “I am going to kill your mother.”
“Further call received from aggrieved today regarding the incessant phone calls continuing. There is a clear course of conduct here and this matter needs to be dealt with. CRB have been updated with suspect details accordingly. Aggrieved agreed to attend Waterlooville station this afternoon, and some time was spent taking a rather lengthy statement which disclosed a history of domestic abuse, harassment, assaults, criminal damage and threats to kill against the aggrieved’s mother (see related RMS occurrence 44050606553). Statement of aggrieved and aggrieved’s mother have been faxed and are currently located in PC 23972 Jelliff’s worktray. Have discussed this matter with shift sergeant and address has been flagged with TWUN in case suspect does attend address of aggrieved and her mother as they both expressed fear that he may turn up at the address and possibly carry out threats. Lates sergeant has also been advised of this. Aggrieved does not wish to change her mobile phone number due to this being a business number, and so she has been advised regarding contacting her service provider of both mobile and landline with a view to barring calls from the suspect.”
“T/C to aggrieved whilst offender in custody to offer belated support advice. Aggrieved aware suspect in custody and has requested OIC update her on mobile as per RMS as to how things progressed. She has requested messages are not left on land line as her mother receives them and gets upset. Aggrieved requested that she does not need any active support at present but did appreciate call. I have advised her I will post her my contact details and a Dom Abuse Pack. There have been no further problems since the last recorded incident and she appeared resolute that she would not be involved in any relationship with him.”
“[AB] given adult caution for criminal damage no further action other offences as both aggrieved had been in contact with him so harassment not appropriate”
“… [AB] is in a relationship with [the First Claimant] and has been in a relationship with her for over 3 years, the relationship seems to have been volatile in nature and the couple regularly argue. [AB] blames [the Second Claimant] for the arguments, … On 10/07/05 [AB] and [the First Claimant] had an argument during which [AB] lost his temper. He then went outside and scratched a swastika into the bonnet of [the First Claimant’s] car. The couple then went their separate ways and [the First Claimant] went on holiday with [the Second Claimant]. [AB] voluntarily attended JW station at 08:30 hours on 10/08/05 and was arrested on suspicion of harassment, criminal damage and making threats to kill. He was interviewed and admitted all offences in interview. However he also stated that both [the Second Claimant] and [the First Claimant] had made contact with him since the initial allegation was made and that all parties were on much better terms, this was corroborated by both [the Second Claimant] and [the First Claimant] in telephone conversations after the conclusion of the interview. [AB] stated in interview that he had suffered some kind of breakdown and was now receiving treatment for this. Taking the above information into account it was decided by PS ORD that the harassment complaints were not appropriate as both aggrieved had made contact with [AB] and taken steps to maintain this contact. It was also agreed that [the Second Claimant] was clearly not in fear of [AB] and did not believe he would carry out the threats against her and so it was not appropriate to continue with the threats to kill allegation. [AB] completely admitted the offence of criminal damage to the car of [the First Claimant] and bearing in mind his previous good conduct was considered appropriate for an adult caution. Both aggrieved were updated with the action that had been taken and stated that they were very pleased with the outcome.”
“I have received a telephone call from [First Claimant], regarding the on going situation that has been going on with the harassment. The aggrieved states that she has regular contact with the [AB], via text message & telephone calls, sometime there can be as many as 50 text messages, this is only if the suspect has money to pay for the phone. The aggrieved would like to make another statement to log the content of the text messages. The aggrieved states that she is unable at present able to bar his mobile phone number from hers. The reason for this is because it would make this person more angry and aggressive if he cannot maintain contact with her. The aggrieved is well aware that is making the situation harder, but at the moment this is her only way of handling this. It was also mentioned during our lengthy telephone call (45mins) that she is worried that the same thing could happen to her that happened to the young lady [in] London in Harvey Nichols. The aggrieved said that she has ready that the young lady in London did all the rights things that was asked of her, but she was still tragically killed. The aggrieved states that she still holds his passport and his personal papers. She has tried to get a friend to drop off the papers to [AB], but he keeps getting angry and saying that he will only take the documentation from [First Claimant] and none else. [First Claimant] also mentioned that on Sunday she attended the Waterlooville Police Station on Sunday, and the staff member who helped her said “that it was not The Bill”. [First Claimant] is unhappy about this comment because she said that PC Jelliff 23972 has been so helpful on the occasions that she has seen him. Would it be possible for an officer to call to arrange a suitable time for [First Claimant] to attend the station to make a report about the text messages. But take no further action at this time.”
“These include threats to kill, “look in the mirror [the First Claimant] you won’t look like that for long” and a threat to gang rape [the First Claimant] by a person with AIDS”
“I have telephoned the aggrieved in relation to the recent calls that have been made. She has been advised that this is a separate incident and she stated that she is giving it her consideration whether or not to report the incidents to the police. She stated she will attend JW station in the next few days to make a complaint if she decides this is what she wanted to do. She also confirmed though that she has actively sought to contact [AB] to speak with him in recent days and I believe it is possible that he makes threats against her when the dialogue breaks down. At this stage I cannot say whether or not there are in fact new crimes that have taken place and this will only come to light when and if an official complaint is made.”
“Call from [name] Enterprise Centre Manager to state that suspect was on site at 1230hrs – male attended aggds place of work but aggd had another colleague on site with her. Male suspect then left but told aggd he will return – not known when – Aggd has apparently recd further threatening text messages – caller advised that could either aggd attend station after work to report latest incidents or contact us direct so appt can be made Centre Manager advised that if male returns to site police must be contacted at time.”
“Inf is the centre manager she is reporting on behalf of [first claimant] who has previously reported case of harassment – 44050606113 refers. Inf states that [agg’d] has received further threatening text messages and inf has been advised that male suspect turned up at [aggd’s] work premises at lunchtime today – luckily, [aggd] was not alone so suspect left but advised that he would be back – unknown when inf has been advised that if / when male returns police are to be contacted immediately inf would like police to attend Monday at midday if possible to officer can speak to [aggd], take a statement and look at the text messages. Inf would also like police to speak to her also. ***Result*** officer to make contact Monday as per log please speak to inft and agg’d ref harassment and nuisance text messages. Advice given ref. threats by alleged offender.”
“I have today taken numerous pages of notes from [First Claimant] who tells a story of constant bombardment of text messages / phone calls to her mobile and to her mothers landline. The nature of which are sometimes threatening. However the sheer volume is harassing. A statement is in the process of being obtained as is the gathering of other information. Both addresses have been flagged with FIMU as [AB] the offender appears somewhat obsessive although she has had no contact from him for 24 Hrs. This has been ongoing for sometime – since end July / beginning August. Further enq’s to be made. [AB] is an ex partner of [First Claimant] who has not “let go” since they split up.”
“I am concerned about my safety and that of my mothers. I do not want any contact with [AB] and I want him to leave me alone. I am also concerned as [AB] is a loner type and has very few friends. He is ex army and has abused drugs and alcohol in the past. He has been violent towards me in the past and has hit me on a couple of occasions. When we were together he would lose it in an instant and would claim it was due to voices in his head.”
“(i) Failed to treat the reports made by the First and Second Claimants on31 July 2005 with the requisite seriousness required, including by failing to treat the First Claimant as a vulnerable victim, failing to undertake a risk assessment and failing to take any immediate steps to investigate the serious allegations made; (ii) Failed on31 July 2005 to refer the First Claimant to a specialist domestic violence team and/or to an officer with experience of domestic violence; (iii) Failed to direct that a female officer interview the First Claimant, which is more likely to have led to the First Claimant disclosing the sexual offences committed against her by AB (which she has subsequently disclosed and which have never been investigated); (iv) Failed when taking the First Claimant’s statement on 31 July to ask sufficient follow up questions, which would have been likely to have led to the First Claimant disclosing more about the serious nature of the abuse, including that it was sometimes sexual in nature, and that she had in effect been imprisoned by AB for a couple of days; (v) Failed to conduct an ABE interview with the First Claimant (vi) Failed to allocate a liaison officer to the Claimants; (vii) Failed to refer the Claimants to victim support; (viii) Failed to take a more detailed statement from the Second Claimant about the effect of AB’s behaviour on the First Claimant; (ix) Failed to contact other possible witnesses, including in particular the mutual friend CD who the officers were aware had information regarding AB and the history of AB and the First Claimant’s relationship; (x) Determined that all that was required following the reports made by the Claimants on 31 July was to advise the Claimants to contact them or call 999 if AB was in contact; (xi) Characterised the relationship between the First Claimant and AB as merely volatile and involving arguments despite the First Claimant having informed officers of AB being very abusive within the relationship and reporting a history of domestic violence. This led to the failure of officers to treat the allegations made with the necessary importance and seriousness required; (xii) Accepting too readily AB’s version of events; in particular PC Jeliff on10 August 2005 accepting AB’s assertions blaming the Second Claimant for the arguments with the First Claimant and describing the ‘couple as going their separate ways’ following an argument, with the First and Second Claimants going on holiday together. In light of the very detailed statement and account of events leading up to the Claimants leaving to get away from AB on 11 July given by the First Claimant on 31 July the officers failed to effectively and critically assess and challenge what they were told by AB; (xiii) Failed on10 August 2005 when AB attended Waterlooville police station to charge AB with assault and/or harassment, and/or threats to kill, instead only issuing a caution for criminal damage – despite clear and serious allegations made by the First Claimant of assault and harassment and allegations by the Second Claimant of threats to kill and harassment; (xiv) No timely risk assessment, or no effective risk assessment, was completed concerning the risk that the First and Second Claimants were facing; this was not done until 2007, and then only at the First Claimant’s request.”
“I am making application to The European Court of Human Rights as I consider our basic human requirements, and basis of the Convention, to live our life in peace and without fear threatened considerably. This issue has been taken to the court of appeal and I have been relentless in asking for help in this matter in the highest possible places with still no satisfactory outcome. I am aware I fulfil the criteria to take this matter further.”
“I am now looking much closer at the issues raised as regards stalking and how inadequate the law is in protecting people like me.” “The CPS decided the offences against me were considered Harrassment … I had no say in it!!!!! He should have been charged with “Threats to kill” both my Mother and I, evidence is overwhelming. I discovered last week my Mum doesn’t even have a restraining order in place and he said “He would be happy to do life in prison for taking her life”
“The CPS failed to convict him of ‘Threats to Kill’ even though evidence was outstanding which would have hopefully given him a 2 year sentence. I understand from the Immigration and Asylum Directorate Human Rights are withdrawn once a sentence of 2 years or more is granted and the prisoner deemed a risk to the public, which [AB] was. It sees failure of these agencies in place to protect the public have left me in a place of fear and possible murder. It is outrageous and have done my utmost to sort this out and to live my life in peace.” (3) In a letter dated25 January 2008 to Miss Harriet Harman QC MP the First Claimant said: “He went to prison for his behaviour but for breaking a restraining order 3 times not for nearly taking my life 4 times and holding me captive. The CPS also failed to recognise how potentially dangerous this person is and to recognise the events I have had to endure. He was able to send me a letter from Prison telling me he would never leave me alone even though a restraining order was in place ….. and so I live my life”
“He was convicted for the wrong crimes and served time for harassment instead of attempted murder and serious threats to kill …. And is therefore now out there somewhere!!”
“The BBC along with myself are looking to spearhead changes in the Law and have had some success reaching and co-ordinating various agencies.” (2) In an email dated14 March 2007 to the assistant to Caroline Spelman MP the First Claimant said that she was looking into taking this issue to the European Court of Human Rights. (3) The First Claimant stated as follows in her letter to Miss Harman: “Compensation does not exist and another battle if I were to claim my Human Rights to be in breach but I am aware I do have a landmark case.” (4) There is also an entry in the First Claimant’s medical records dated24 May 2007 which records her as saying that: “In last 2 weeks has made links with Family Justice Centre in Croydon who have agreed to take up her case & lawyers from centre and affiliated police will be looking at safety issues since her alarms have not been switched back on change of address.”
“I do intend to take this matter further as my Human Rights (2&3) to live my life without fear and to be protected to be in serious breach. I feel I have just cause to make an official complaint which I intend to do.”
“The police officer at one point looking at his wrist watch, he said it was a long statement and he was due to go off shift soon.” “Reading through these examples written and told to the Police within this statement wonder how they missed it. How did they not see he was a potential murderer, anyone reading this can see that?” “Why did they not ask me if there was more or to send me to specialists in this area for me to be interviewed with expertise?” “Why did you not identify the other crimes committed against me and charge him for those too, I told you he hurt me, locked me in and threatened me, why didn’t you ask me about those times and why I was so afraid of him and for my life? Why did he walk free that day and not sentenced for any crimes against me or my body, am I that worthless?”
“1. Neglect of duty by the Police in not investigating serious allegations of offences. This complaint is not against a specific officer but relates to an Organisational failure to prosecute serious cases of domestic violence. This failure meant minor offences were investigated and other more serious allegations such as false imprisonment and psychological abuse were ignored. 2. Neglect of duty in not affording victim support and protection, which relates to further Organisational failure in that adequate risk assessments covering serious incidents of domestic violence were not mandatory. This resulted in you feeling un-supported, scared and alone. 3. Neglect of duty in not assessing Immigration Status correctly. This complaint is of further Organisational failure in not assessing domestic violence investigations thoroughly. This meant that additional Immigration Law Offences were not identified. 4. Neglect of duty in relation to being asked not to report matters to the Police unless tangible offences were evidence which was a failure by the Organisation to recognise the potential for on-going harassment in domestic violence cases.”
“The first 4 complaints all relate the standard of the investigation into your allegations. The initial statement that you provided gave details of numerous offences and it is apparent that without a full risk assessment being conducted the potential to indentify the risk of on-going offences was not highlighted sufficiently. This lack of a full risk assessment lead to an inappropriate decision to NFA the allegation of Threats to Kill and Harassment and issue a caution for criminal damage. These decisions had a knock-on effect for future investigations of continuing harassment against you which meant that any sentence at court was restricted to breaches of court orders rather than more substantive offences.”
“(1) A person who claims that a public authority has acted (or proposes to act) in a way which is made unlawful by section 6(1) may— (a) bring proceedings against the authority under this Act in the appropriate court or tribunal, ….” “(5) Proceedings under subsection (1)(a) must be brought before the end of— (a) the period of one year beginning with the date on which the act complained of took place; or (b) such longer period as the court or tribunal considers equitable having regard to all the circumstances,” (a) bring proceedings against the authority under this Act in the appropriate court or tribunal, ….” (a) the period of one year beginning with the date on which the act complained of took place; or (b) such longer period as the court or tribunal considers equitable having regard to all the circumstances,”
“30. It was common ground in the submissions to us that a court should not add to or qualify or put any gloss upon the words “equitable having regard to all the circumstances” when considering the exercise of the discretion undersection 7(5)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (which I have set out at para 9 above). The words of the subsection meant exactly what they said and the court should not attempt to rewrite it. 31. I accept the submissions made. Parliament gave the court a wide discretion; I do not think it would be helpful to list the factors to be taken into account or to state which should have greater weight or lesser weight. The statute requires the court to consider all the circumstances in deciding whether it is equitable to allow a longer period within which to bring the claim. It is useful, I think, to refer to the observations of Earl Loreburn LC in the House of Lords in Hyman v Rose[1912] AC 623 in relation to the exercise of a very wide statutory discretion, even though given in the very different context of relief against forfeiture. He disagreed with the approach of the Court of Appeal which had thought it helpful to lay down some general principles according to which the discretion should be exercised. Earl Loreburn LC made it clear, at p 631, that where the court was given a wide discretion and directed to consider all the circumstances, it was not desirable to fetter that discretion by rules. 32. In my view, it is desirable to follow a similar approach in relation to theHuman Rights Act 1998 and not to list the factors or to indicate which factor may be more important than another. It is for the court to examine in the circumstances of each case all the relevant factors and then decide whether it is equitable to provide for a longer period. It may be necessary in the circumstances of a particular case to look at objective and subjective factors; proportionality will generally be taken into account. It is not in my view appropriate to say that one particular factor has as a matter of general approach a greater weight than others. The court should look at the matter broadly and attach such weight as is appropriate in each given case.”
“The clear inference is that, in the case of such claims against public authorities, perhaps somewhat reflecting the tight three-month time limit for the purposes of judicial review proceedings, it was considered right that there should be really quite tight limitation periods. The judge made little of that factor but in my judgment could well have made more.”
“… it is clearly the policy of the legislature that HRA claims should be dealt with both swiftly and economically. All such claims are, by definition, brought against public authorities, and there is no public interest in these being burdened by expensive, time-consuming and tardy claims brought years after the event.”
“For the first time I understood that it all came down to what the police had done at the very start, when I first made my report in 2005 and that everything I had been chasing round in circles came back to that point in time.”
“Article 3 No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” “Article 8 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
“66. The process by which a human rights claim is adjudicated is quite different. The starting point is not the relationship between the claimant and the (state) defendant. It is to ascertain whether the case is within the scope of any of the rights or freedoms which the Convention requires the state to secure; and then, if it is, to decide whether the state has or has not violated the article or articles in question. …” “67. … Because the focus of the human rights claim is not on loss to the individual, but on the maintenance of a proper standard of protection, the court is in principle concerned with the state's overall approach to the relevant Convention obligation. …” “68. … the inquiry into compliance with the article 3 duty is first and foremost concerned, not with the effect on the claimant, but with the overall nature of the investigative steps to be taken by the state. This circumstance, moreover, is consonant with the fact that Strasbourg accords a margin of appreciation to the state as to the means of compliance with article 3. As I have said, the margin widens at the bottom of the scale but narrows at the top. While the doctrine of the margin of appreciation has its origin in the international character of the court, which inevitably stands at some distance from the differing exigencies of the individual states parties, I have no doubt that we should accord a like margin (more often described on the domestic front as a margin of discretion) in the adjudication of claims under the 1998 Act.”