‘No black and white answer about how far we can go’: police decision making under the domestic violence disclosure scheme

ABSTRACT

Domestic violence disclosure schemes are being adopted by police forces in countries around the world, yet they remain controversial and empirically under-researched. This paper presents findings from the largest study of police implementation of such a scheme to date, drawing on in-depth interviews and Freedom of Information data from 12 police forces in England and Wales. We reveal that victims of domestic abuse face a ‘postcode lottery’ of disclosures, with some receiving minimal or no information about the criminal histories of their partners, and others receiving lengthy and detailed descriptions. We identify and analyse two contrasting police approaches to disclosure: ‘risk-averse’ approaches, which are driven by efforts to avoid costly legal action by disgruntled offenders, and to minimise the resource implications of the scheme; and ‘permissive’ approaches, which are more explicitly victim-centred, reflect an increasingly prevalent ‘coercive control’ discourse, and are informed and guided by close collaboration with specialist partner agencies. The discussion sheds light on the shifting culture of domestic violence policing in the UK, yields immediate recommendations for the regulation and best practice of domestic violence disclosure schemes, and has methodological implications for efforts to assess their effectiveness.

KEYWORDS:

• Domestic abuse
• domestic violence
• safeguarding
• disclosure
• policing

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 As the Coroner in the Clare Wood murder case stated ‘consideration should be given to the disclosure of such convictions and their circumstances to potential victims in order that they can make informed choices about matters affecting their safety and that of their children’. Summary of Reports and Responses under Rule 43 of the Coroners Rules – Sixth Report, May 2012, p 12

2 The ‘Family Violence Information Disclosure Scheme’ was introduced in 2015.

3 New South Wales passed a directive for a Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme after the completion of a pilot in 2018. The pilot of the South Australia version began in 2018.

4 In Alberta, the Disclosure to Protect Against Domestic Violence (Clare’s Law) Act, D13-5 was passed in October 2019. In Saskatchewan the Interpersonal Violence Disclosure Protocol (Clare’s Law) Act, SS 2019, c I-10.4, was introduced in November 2018

5 In 2019, a joint submission made by 15 women’s organisations in the UK supported the placing of the DVDS on a statutory footing (SafeLives 2019).

6 Only two qualitative studies of the DVDS have been undertaken in the six years since its roll-out. The first was by the Home Office (2016b), and the second was by Duggan (2018).

7 Police spending on ‘public protection’, within which domestic abuse safeguarding sits, rose by 22 percent between 2017 and 2019 (HMICFRS 2019, p. 9), a figure that is notable in light of the fact that policing has undergone real-term budget cuts of 19% in the period 2010–2018 (National Audit Office 2018, p. 7)

8 A total of 43 regional forces. This included England and Wales well as Police Scotland and the Police Service of Northern Ireland, though in both these latter jurisdictions the legal basis of the local version of the Scheme is different.

9 These were part of a larger, ongoing qualitative study into the ethical and human rights implications of police use of data and technologies

10 Ranks ranged from PC to Detective Inspector, though the majority were Sergeants.

11 Participant numbers were allocated as part of the larger study, which is why they do not correspond to the number of people involved in this study, e.g. 1–29.

12 Munby LJ in H and L v A City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 403 at para 37 found there was an inherent link between a 'pressing need' test for disclosure and the 'proportionality' requirements of Article 8 ECHR for disclosures, noting that:

As the authorities show, each case must be judged on its own facts. The issue is essentially one of proportionality. Information such as that with which we are here concerned is to be disclosed only if there is a ‘pressing need’ for that disclosure. There is no difference in this context between the common law test and the approach mandated by Article 8. The outcome is the same under both.

13 For example, one (risk-averse) force employs two police officers as DVDS disclosure specialists on a full-time basis (P02) with a more senior officer devoting time to authorising the disclosures. Another force employs a team of 5 police officers, who devote about 60% of their full working time to implementation of the DVDS, plus authorisation from senior officers and a discussion at a MARAC (P53, P54).

14 It is important to note that nearly all participants emphasised that disclosures are met with a very wide range of reactions, from utter indifference to shock and devastation, and that generalisations about the impact on victims are therefore very difficult to make.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council [grant number ES/M010236/1].