About this page. This page summarises a Domestic Homicide Review published in the Home Office DHR Library. The full report is available at the source link below. Victim and perpetrator names are not included in extracted summaries on this page.
Source · Domestic Homicide Review
Kent review
CSP: KentPublished: April 2023Year of death: 2015Extracted: 6 recs
Statutory domestic homicide review under section 9 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. Source: Home Office DHR Library.
Systemic failings in inter-agency information sharing, risk assessment, and mental health care coordination, particularly post-absolute discharge, contributed to the homicide. Key concerns include insufficient family engagement, unverified risk disclosure to partners, and inadequate staff governance.
Home Office classifications
18 tags
Source-supplied classifications used by the Home Office to catalogue this review.
Children - under 18 shared parental responsibility (between perpetrators)
Children - present at homicide (including adult children)
Perpetrator - case heard in court
Perpetrator - mental ill health
Perpetrator - psychosis
Perpetrator - serious or life limiting illness
Perpetrator - known to others as a domestic abuse perpetrator
Perpetrator - known to family as a domestic abuse perpetrator
Perpetrator - supervised by mental health services
DHR process - family contributed to dhr
DHR process - family consulted about terms of reference
DHR process - family received draft report
DHR process - family attended dhr panel
DHR process - social services recommendations
DHR process - health services recommendations
DHR process - identification of risk recommendation themes
DHR process - policy recommendation themes
DHR process - multi agency working recommendation themes
Extracted recommendations
6 recommendations pulled from the report · 4 matched to organisations in the index
Secure Units and other similar establishments should ensure that there is a process of effective communication between them, the Police and other appropriate agencies regarding reporting assaults in their establishments. This must include the local authority where assaults occur in hospitals between patients.
Whenever there is a significant change of circumstance, such as a change of relationship, or any significant change of circumstance for those under supervision on conditional discharge, then a multi–agency meeting should be initiated and as a result to take and record any action that is required, the person(s) responsible for actions and time scale for completion.
Where there are concerns in regard to family members raised within a team meeting or any other internal setting then those issues should be clarified. The proposed course of action to manage this position should be set out in the form of an action plan, which should indicate the action required, the responsible member of staff, timescale for action and thereafter feedback on the engagement with the family and the outcomes recorded.
That the process of Mental Health Tribunal Review hearing applications for Absolute Discharge be reviewed to ensure that current arrangements are adequate to provide the panel with the appropriate breadth of information needed to reach their decision. Such changes should also consider how best to receive intelligence/information from the family.
Where an agency expresses a view as to the decision a Mental Health Tribunal should consider, then, such a view must be supported with a rationale, either in person or in the form of documentary evidence.
That the NHS Trust, in light of the findings of their investigation, further consider whether the management and governance arrangements currently in place were effective and consider how lessons learnt from this review can be applied for the future.