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: Kent Published: February 2026 Year of death: 2019 Extracted: 10 recs

Statutory domestic homicide review under section 9 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. Source: Home Office DHR Library.

Original review (PDF) ↗ Source: Home Office DHR Library

Summary AI-generated

Verify against the full report at the source link
The review identifies challenges in engaging with rough sleepers with complex needs, including alcohol dependency and domestic abuse. It highlights gaps in interagency cooperation, information sharing, adherence to policies, record-keeping, and the effectiveness of the Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) process.

Home Office classifications

28 tags

Source-supplied classifications used by the Home Office to catalogue this review.

  • Victim - alcohol misuse
  • Victim - housing issues
  • Victim - had been a victim of an abuser before
  • Victim - referred to marac at any time
  • Victim - case heard at marac before homicide
  • Perpetrator - case heard in court
  • Perpetrator - issued life sentence
  • Perpetrator - alcohol misuse
  • Perpetrator - substance misuse
  • Perpetrator - housing issues
  • Perpetrator - suicidal thoughts
  • Perpetrator - attended drug and alcohol services
  • Perpetrator - supervised by probation services
  • Aggravating factors - coercive or controlling behaviour
  • Aggravating factors - physical abuse
  • Aggravating factors - economic abuse
  • DHR process - family consulted about terms of reference
  • DHR process - family supported by expert specialist advocate
  • DHR process - police recommendations
  • DHR process - social services recommendations
  • DHR process - health services recommendations
  • DHR process - idva or other domestic abuse support service 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 - record keeping recommendation themes
  • DHR process - awareness raising recommendation themes

Extracted recommendations

10 recommendations pulled from the report · 3 matched to organisations in the index

Recommendation 1

Addressed to Kent and Medway CCG Now the Integrated Care Board (ICB)

Records maintained by GP Surgeries need to be current and reflect information that they are privy to from other NHS Organisations. Where a patient is homeless, the record should be flagged as such and contribute to a Surgery based risk register of vulnerable patients.

Verified wording from the published review · Original review (PDF) ↗

Recommendation 2

Addressed to Kent and Medway CCG Now the Integrated Care Board (ICB)

A process to be developed that assists Primary Care practices with quality monitoring including the monitoring of compliance with existing safeguarding policy and procedures beyond national contract measures.

Verified wording from the published review · Original review (PDF) ↗

Recommendation 3

Addressed to East Kent Hospital University Foundation Trust

There are clear benefits to having a dedicated IDVA available in Accident and Emergency, along with a dedicated Homeless Practitioner role and bespoke processes in place to deal with homelessness. This good practice should be disseminated to other Acute Hospital Trusts.

Verified wording from the published review · Original review (PDF) ↗

Recommendation 4

Addressed to Kent Police

The police should review current procedures to ensure all MARAC victims, where appropriate, have operational information on STORM. This information needs to be current and relevant to assist call handlers undertaking real time risk assessments.

Verified wording from the published review · Original review (PDF) ↗

Recommendation 5

Addressed to KCC Adult Social Care and Health Directorate

Current protocols and procedures should be reviewed to ensure client files and supervision client files are completed and adhere to policy guidelines in terms of content and timeliness.

Verified wording from the published review · Original review (PDF) ↗

Recommendation 7

Addressed to CJLDS (KMPT)

A training needs analysis should be carried out to identify what training should be provided to Liaison and Diversion Practitioners (not professionally qualified) deployed in custody suites. This should cover existing staff and new staff recruited to these roles as part of their induction training. Training should specifically cover what circumstances must be referred to a qualified mental health specialist. The role and function of CJLDS practitioners should be widely disseminated to other KMPT departments. Vulnerability assessments are not mental health assessments.

Verified wording from the published review · Original review (PDF) ↗

Recommendation 8

Addressed to Porchlight

Deliver workshop training to staff and volunteers that details what good record keeping looks like. Support managers to deliver a clear footprint across records and caseloads to ensure robust auditing and safe case progression.

Verified wording from the published review · Original review (PDF) ↗

Recommendation 9

Addressed to MARAC Steering Group and DHR Steering Group

It is recommended that a programme of review and evaluation of MARACs in Kent and Medway takes place. The findings of this review are to be taken to the Kent and Medway Domestic Abuse Executive Board and the Domestic Homicide Review Steering Group with recommendations for discussion. Kent and Medway Safeguarding Adults Board to be given sight of findings. (DA Leads for KCC, Medway Council and Kent Police).

Verified wording from the published review · Original review (PDF) ↗

Recommendation 10

Addressed to Kent Community Safety Partnership (KCSP)

Disseminate the learning from this review with local Community Safety Partnerships (CSPs) and highlight the risks associated with allowing rough sleepers to congregate in makeshift camps for a prolonged period.

Verified wording from the published review · Original review (PDF) ↗