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
Bracknell Forest review
CSP: Bracknell ForestPublished: April 2023Year of death: 2012Extracted: 9 recs
Statutory domestic homicide review under section 9 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. Source: Home Office DHR Library.
The review found no prior agency contact with the victim or perpetrator, preventing prediction or prevention of the homicide. It also identified issues with DHR process familiarity, information sharing between agencies, and health data quality.
Home Office classifications
15 tags
Source-supplied classifications used by the Home Office to catalogue this review.
Victim - had been a victim of an abuser before
Victim - immigration involvement
Children - under 18 shared parental responsibility (between victims)
Perpetrator - case heard in court
Perpetrator - known to others as a domestic abuse perpetrator
Perpetrator - known to family as a domestic abuse perpetrator
Perpetrator - immigration involvement
Aggravating factors - coercive or controlling behaviour
Aggravating factors - physical abuse
DHR process - family contributed to dhr
DHR process - health services recommendations
DHR process - community safety partnership recommendations
DHR process - technology systems recommendation themes
DHR process - awareness raising recommendation themes
DHR process - other recommendation themes
Extracted recommendations
9 recommendations pulled from the report · 4 matched to organisations in the index
At a local level organisations required to produce IMRs require a better familiarity with the statutory basis for conducting DHRs and their role and responsibilities in engaging with these activities. The Community Safety Partnership is best placed to consider this matter further.
The Home Office is also asked through this report to review how it might best remind key statutory agencies of their responsibilities in engaging with DHRs. Please see recommendation 6 & 7.
The key organisations that represent the statutory organisations on the DHR Panel should ensure that the officers they delegate for attendance have sufficient authority to enable the DHR Panel to administer its statutory responsibilities appropriately.
The terms of reference for future DHRs going forward need to mention relevant background information such as court transcripts, where appropriate. In addition, again where appropriate, an early invitation from the DHR to the Police’s Senior Investigation Officer should be built into the terms of reference of DHRs.
The Home Office will be asked through this review to consider whether the support services for victims of domestic violence should be further promoted at borders and through the activities of the UKBA.
The Home Office will be asked to note that the UKBA did not supply an IMR for this DHR. However a witness statement was produced. This is also referred to in Recommendation 2.
Addressed to
Attorney General’s Office | Home Office
The Crown Prosecution Service (Essex) did not supply an IMR for this DHR. A one page letter was received subsequently. The Attorney General’s Office should be contacted, this may well be best through the Home Office, initially. This is also linked to Recommendation 2.
The Community Safety Partnership needs to review, post 1 April 2013, the most suitable strategic partner representative following significant organisational and governance changes concerning the Department of Health and Public Health England.
It is recommended that Health’s informatics access arrangements are reviewed in relation to DHRs. This to reach certainty as to whether health access via Walk in Centres, for example, or Accident and Emergency are recording information that may be relevant to DHR cases and their interface with nationally held data sets.