Sixth Report - So-called honour-based abuse

There is inconsistency in how data on honour-based abuse offences is collected and recorded by the police. This is partly due to incorrect recording by police officers, either in failing to recognise an offence as honour-based, or in making an inaccurate assessment of the context. There is insufficient information provided in the published data, and the lack of ethnicity data makes it particularly difficult to know in which communities honour-based abuse occurs, in what forms, and how those communities are being served by police and other agencies. Data currently collected by children’s social care services does not allow for the prevalence of honour- based abuse amongst children and young people to be understood and monitored effectively at Government level.

The Home Office, National Police Chiefs’ Council and College of Policing should publish refreshed guidance for forces on how to accurately and consistently record incidents of honour-based abuse. The Home Office should instruct police forces across England and Wales to collect specific information on victims and perpetrators of honour-based abuse, including data on their protected characteristics, and to report this to the Home Office as part of the existing Annual Data Requirement.

The Department of Health and Social Care and the Department of Education should add options for honour-based abuse to both the ‘primary need at first social work assessment’ and ‘factors identified at the end of the assessment’ categories in the ‘Children in need’ census. (Paragraph 25) Recognising honour-based abuse

We welcome the steps taken by the police service in response to the concerns raised in the super-complaint on honour-based abuse brought by Liberty and the Halo Project in 2020. However, there is still more work to be done if victims of honour-based abuse are to feel empowered to report the crimes against them and feel confident that they will be safeguarded against further harm. People subject to honour-based abuse take huge 40 risks in reporting the crimes against them, and it is critical that the public services in place to protect them are able to recognise that abuse at the first opportunity.

In response to this Report, the Government should set out the progress made in implementing the national training package for frontline police officers on recognising so-called honour-based abuse. The Government must also set out the steps it will take to ensure those working in other safeguarding roles, including in social services and education, are trained to recognise honour-based abuse and not deterred from tackling it by cultural sensitivity.

The Government must include specific questions on honour-based abuse in the Domestic Abuse Risk Assessment tool to help both victims and police officers identify risks confidently and accurately.

The Government is currently reviewing the content of relationships, sex and health education (RSHE) taught in schools. It is clear from the evidence we received that the teaching of honour-based abuse is currently inadequate. The ongoing review of RSHE should consider how the teaching of honour-based abuse should be improved across educational settings.

In order to tackle so-called honour-based abuse effectively, it is crucial there is shared understanding of it across all agencies. The introduction of a statutory definition of honour-based abuse would contribute to social and professional understanding, help to improve data collection and ultimately assist in bringing more perpetrators to justice.

The Government should introduce a statutory definition of honour-based abuse. It should consult a wide range of experts, specialist by-and-for services and survivors of honour-based abuse on framing the definition using the existing Crown Prosecution Service definition as a starting point. The definition, once finalised, should be accompanied by statutory multi- agency guidance. (Paragraph 49) Supporting victims and reforming the law

Abusers use the insecure immigration status of their victims to deter and prevent them from seeking support, exploiting fears that reporting abuse to the police will lead to action against the victim by Immigration Enforcement. We are not satisfied that the Immigration Enforcement Migrant Victims Protocol proposed by the Home Office, which prevents immigration enforcement action against that victim only while investigation 41 and prosecution proceedings are ongoing, and the victim is receiving support to make an application to regularise their stay, is sufficient to mitigate those concerns.

The Government should establish an appropriate firewall-type mechanism between the police and the Home Office to prevent data sharing for the purposes of enforcing immigration rules against victims of abuse. The firewall should be designed to ensure the police only share information with Immigration Enforcement on victims in exceptional circumstances, which must be narrowly defined and be for the purposes of assisting in the safeguarding of the individual or taking action against their abuser. If and when police become aware a victim has irregular immigration status, they should provide that person with information about local support services (including legal advice) and encourage them to seek advice on regularising their status. The National Police Chiefs’ Council guidance should be updated to reflect this.

By-and-for services, which are organisations designed and run by and for people who are minoritised, are vital to ensuring victims of honour- based abuse receive the support they need. However, the sector is underfunded, and complex commissioning processes often prevent smaller specialist organisations from competing against generic and larger providers for the funding available. Such funding is also too often available only on a short term basis.

The Government should increase the funding available to by-and-for services that support victims of honour-based abuse. The Government should commit to providing this funding across multiple years. It should also assess the merits of that funding being made available in a simple grant form so it is accessible to smaller organisations which lack the resources to compete with larger providers in complex commissioning processes.

The Support for Migrant Victims Scheme pilot has been valuable and we welcome its extension to 2025. However, there are shortfalls in funding to support victims with no recourse to public funds. We are concerned this is aggravated by the Government’s reservation on Article 59 of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (the ‘Istanbul Convention’). In order to help limit perpetrators’ ability to use a victim’s immigration status as a tool for control, the Government should reconsider its reservation to Article 59 of the Istanbul Convention. It should also consider extending eligibility to the Destitute Domestic Violence Concession scheme and Domestic Violence Indefinite Leave to Remain to all migrant victims. (Paragraph 75) 42

We recognise the overwhelming majority of victims of honour-based abuse are female, but this must not detract from the experiences of male victims. We are concerned the inclusion of men and boys in strategies primarily aimed at women and girls fails to empower male victims and can contribute to underreporting. The Government should consider introducing a distinct honour-based abuse strategy aimed at male victims, parallel to that aimed at women and girls. Such a strategy might empower male victims to report the crimes committed against them and to seek support.

It is reassuring to hear judges have robustly rejected any attempts to use ‘honour’ to reduce a sentence. Explicitly recognising so-called honour in sentencing guidelines would go further; it would strengthen the understanding that honour-based abuse is taken seriously by the criminal justice system and only ever as an aggravating factor. We recommend the Sentencing Council considers including motivations of honour as an aggravating factor in the domestic abuse guideline. (Paragraph 89) 43