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
Hartlepool review
CSP: HartlepoolPublished: July 2023Year of death: 2012Extracted: 7 recs
Statutory domestic homicide review under section 9 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. Source: Home Office DHR Library.
The review identified areas for improvement in agency responses to domestic violence, particularly regarding the handling of withdrawal statements by police and the need for enhanced domestic violence training and escalation processes within GP practices.
Home Office classifications
31 tags
Source-supplied classifications used by the Home Office to catalogue this review.
Victim - alcohol misuse
Victim - serious or life limiting illness
Victim - had been a victim of an abuser before
Children - under 18 shared parental responsibility (between victims)
Children - living with victim (including adult children)
Children - living with perpetrator (including adult children)
Child - primary address same as victim
Perpetrator - case heard in court
Perpetrator - issued life sentence
Perpetrator - mental ill health
Perpetrator - known to agencies as a domestic abuse perpetrator
Perpetrator - known to police as a domestic abuse perpetrator
Perpetrator - known to health services as a domestic abuse perpetrator
Perpetrator - known to idva or other domestic abuse support service as a domestic abuse perpetrator
Perpetrator - known to others as a domestic abuse perpetrator
Perpetrator - known to family as a domestic abuse perpetrator
Aggravating factors - separation
Aggravating factors - coercive or controlling behaviour
Aggravating factors - sexual abuse
Aggravating factors - psychological or emotional abuse
Aggravating factors - physical abuse
Aggravating factors - economic abuse
DHR process - family consulted about terms of reference
DHR process - police recommendations
DHR process - health services recommendations
DHR process - community safety partnership recommendations
DHR process - technology systems recommendation themes
DHR process - identification of risk recommendation themes
DHR process - training recommendation themes
DHR process - awareness raising recommendation themes
DHR process - other recommendation themes
Extracted recommendations
7 recommendations pulled from the report · 2 matched to organisations in the index
Proforma withdrawal statements should not be used within Cleveland Police and all withdrawal statements should include the information outlined in section 4.4.5 of NPIA Guidance on Investigating Domestic Abuse 2008.
An MG6 should accompany all withdrawal statements and should again include all the points raised in the NPIA Guidance on Investigating Domestic Abuse 2008.
The GP practice should encourage Tees Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust to attend a clinical education session(s) within the practice to improve knowledge within the practice and awareness of mental health services on Tees, including accessing timely and contemporaneous information about care pathways.
The GP practice should introduce an escalation process for dealing with patterns of concerns that are identified in relation to patients where it is suspected that domestic violence is taking place (on this occasion no such concerns were identified).
The GP practice should undertake training in relation to domestic violence in order to ensure contemporary knowledge and awareness of policy, procedures and referral pathways.
The Local Area Team for Durham and Tees Valley for NHS England should consider the arrangements for training of GP practices on domestic violence issues (taking into account also the potential training needs in respect of safeguarding both children and vulnerable adults and preventing violent extremism), with a view to designing and developing a medium term training programme.
The Safer Hartlepool Partnership should undertake a review of progress against recommendations 1 – 6 above 12 months after their adoption, and should at that point consider how to resolve any recommendations which are not yet complete.