![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
Victim retraction is almost universally viewed by criminal justice officials as a problematic outcome in cases of domestic violence, consequently policy initiatives have been designed to increase support to victims in the hope that more will decide to continue with their cases instead of retracting their statements. However our understanding of the various causes and full consequences of retraction remains limited. Using data from five Specialist Domestic Violence Courts (SDVCs) in England and Wales, we analysed a sample of 216 domestic violence cases to assess the relative influence of victim characteristics, offence characteristics, features of case processing, and evidence available from case files on the decision to retract. Despite the innovative courts, each embedded in strong multi‐agency partnerships, half of domestic violence victims still chose to retract. The policy implications of these results are discussed in the context of current British government initiatives designed to ‘Narrow the Justice Gap’ and ‘Bring Offenders to Justice’ while at the same attempting to locate the victim “at the heart of the criminal justice system.”
Notes
[1] Specialist Domestic Violence Courts have operated in the US and parts of Canada since the early 1980s.
[2] From this point forward, we will refer to SDVCs acknowledging that one site used a FTS.
[3] These recommendations are now being taken forward by a national cross‐departmental working group of the National Criminal Justice Board.
[4] Our evaluation of five SDVCs in England and Wales forms the core of this investigation (Cook et al., Citation2004).
[5] In England and Wales, all criminal proceedings begin in the Magistrates’ Courts. The more serious (indictable) offences are then referred to the Crown Court.
[6] Pre‐Trial Review is a stage in the process where the defendant, their solicitor, the prosecutor and a Magistrate or Court Clerk meet to determine whether the case can be resolved without having a trial hearing; to identify evidence which can be agreed or needs to be disclosed to the other side; and to fix a trial date.
[7] Advocates are well placed to assess victims’ views because they are the main contact for the victim and function as her ‘representative’ in court proceedings. Advocates must interact with the victim to ascertain the likelihood of her participation in a criminal prosecution, and relay to the prosecutor her reasons for retracting when this is the case. Therefore they are very knowledgeable about victims’ perceptions of the difficulties and challenges of participating in a criminal case, as well as what facilitates a more positive experience from their perspective.
[8] The research was funded by the Crown Prosecution Service and Department for Constitutional Affairs.
[9] This task was further complicated by the introduction of the new CPS IT system – COMPASS – during the research timeframe.
[10] Missing values were recoded to ‘no’ responses to maintain an adequate sample size. Most variables had less than 10% missing data. However a few variables had more substantial proportions of missing data (e.g., background details about the victim or defendant). These reflect poor or inconsistent reporting within CPS cases. The recoding strategy is conservative in that levels of ‘yes’ responses are probably higher in actuality, and could therefore potentially be more powerful predictors in our regression model.
[11] The lack of even basic demographic information in a substantial proportion of files meant that collecting other important background information, such as victims’ experiences of abuse as children, could not be collected as part of this study. This does not negate the fact that such information is probably related to victims’ decision‐making as adults, as one reviewer rightly noted.
[12] Due to high levels of missing data, unfortunately we could not reliably ascertain those cases where both the defendant and the victim had consumed alcohol prior to the incident. As noted in other research, this can have an important bearing on how domestic violence cases are handled by criminal justice officials (e.g., Berk & Loseke, Citation1981; Worden, Citation1989; Worden & Pollitz, Citation1984).
[13] See page 29 of the CPS Guidance on Prosecuting Cases of Domestic Violence (2001).
[14] CPS guidelines on prosecuting domestic violence issued in November 2001 require prosecutors to consider ‘all relevant options’ before deciding whether a case should be continued where the victim has withdrawn.
[15] The category ‘non‐white’ included victims that were Asian (Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi), Arab, Chinese, Black, or Mixed.
[16] This represents the odds‐ratio Exp(B) converted into a percentage for ease of interpretation. This was calculated using the formula [percent=(1‐(SUM(expb)/1))∗‐1]. The percentage means that the independent variable increases/decreases the expected dependent variable by X%, holding all other variables constant.
[17] At the same time, this may also be ‘good news’ for criminal justice agencies, who are working towards government targets to bring more perpetrators to justice, narrow the justice gap and enhance confidence in the criminal justice system.
[18] Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of the Constabulary (see http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/hmic/hmic.htm for more information) and Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (see http://www.hmcpsi.gov.uk/ for more information).