Get documents about "Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets 29 January 2011 FINAL REPOR
W
Description
Dv 120 Court Forms English document sample
Document Sample
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton
Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
29 January 2011
FINAL REPORT
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
Report written by:
Dr Angela Morgan
Policy Research Institute
University of Wolverhampton
Wolverhampton Science Park
Glaisher Drive
Wolverhampton
West Midlands
WV10 9RU
Tel: 01902 824278
Fax: 01902 824005
E-mail: Angela-Morgan@wlv.ac.uk
Web-site: www.wlv.ac.uk/pri
Research team:
Dr Martin Roche, Dr Angela Morgan, Kulbir Thandi and Derek Bunce.
Acknowledgements
The research team would like to thank many people who provided help and support in collecting
the enormous amount of data required for this evaluation. In particular, the following people are
owed much gratitude: Sue Lindup (WDVF), Andrea Whittingham (CPS), Polly Sidhu (CPS), Manjit
Dehal (AWAAZ), Caroline Mansell (CJSSC Manager 2004/5, The Haven), Jenni Moore (CJSSC
based at The Haven during 2004/5), Jasvinder Devgon (The Haven), Ruth Clark (WS), Sandra
Kelly (VS), Anthony Walker (WCC), Jane Henson (WM Police G2), Julie Burton (WM Police, G2),
Mark Diamond (WM Police G1) and Tracey Bateman (Police, G1).
In particular, thanks go to Derek Bunce who assisted in data collection and Kulbir Thandi who
conducted many interviews with key informants and domestic violence survivors.
In addition, we could not have completed the evaluation without the valuable insights of key
individuals in stakeholder groups as well as survivors of domestic violence themselves. Their
thoughts and reflections on the WSDVC were paramount to the evaluation.
29 January 2011 Page 2
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
CONTENTS
Page no:
List of Tables and Figures 4
Commonly used acronyms 5
Executive Summary 6
Introduction and Context 9
Research Aims and Methods 11
Findings: The Statistical Data 13
Findings: The Qualitative Data 23
Practitioner Views on the WSDVC 23
User Views on the WSDVC 29
Synopsis of Findings 33
Recommendations 33
Bibliography 34
Annex 1 - Membership of the WSDVC Steering Group 35
Annex 2 - Key Informant Interview Schedule 36
Annex 3 - Key Informants 42
Annex 4 - DV Victim/Survivor Interview Schedule 43
Annex 5 - WMP Ethnicity Categories and Codes 47
Annex 6 - Crown Prosecution Service Data 48
West Midlands Police Data 59
The Haven Data 61
Criminal Justice Support Services Co-ordinator Data 62
Homelessness Services (WCC) Data 74
AWAAZ Data 77
Victim Support Data 78
29 January 2011 Page 3
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
List of Tables and Figures
Page no:
Tables
Table 1: Approximate length of time to prosecution or finalisation of cases 13
Table 2: Total DV repeat victimisation recorded by WMP 14
Table 3: Repeat rates of DV recorded by WMP 14
Table 4: CPS recorded repeat victims 15
Table 5: Total DV-related incidents recorded by WMP 15
Table 6: CPS charges by month 15
Table 7: Number of cases in which PCA was requested by the police 17
Table 8: Comparison of sentence by type 17
Table 9: Total number of referrals and admissions to The Haven refuge 19
Table 10: WCC DV housing application acceptances for the past 4 years 19
Table 11: VS Total Referral Sources 20
Table 12: VS Non-Police Referrals by Age and Gender 21
Table 13: VS Non-Police Referrals by Ethnicity and Gender 21
Figures
Figure 1: Chart illustrating changes in repeat DV victimisation over the past years 14
Figure 2: Total charges (1st, 2nd and 3rd) brought by the CPS 16
Figure 3: Comparison of total DV incidents (WMP data) and total number of
charges brought (CPS data) by month 16
Figure 4: Comparison of not guilty pleas (CPS and CJSSC data) 18
Figure 5: Total acceptances of DV-related applications for accommodation by WCC 19
Figure 6: Comparison of Total VS Referrals from 2001/2, 2002/3 and 2004/5 21
29 January 2011 Page 4
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
Commonly used Acronyms
AWAAZ - Asian Women’s Adhikar Association
BEME - Black and Ethnic Minority Experiences
CJ - Criminal Justice
CJS - Criminal Justice System
CJSS - Criminal Justice Support Services
CJSSC - Criminal Justice Support Services Co-ordinator
CPS - Crown Prosecution Service
DV - Domestic Violence
G1 - OCU Bilston Street, Wolverhampton
G2 - OCU Alfred Squires Road, Wednesfield, Wolverhampton
GP - General Practitioner
KI - Key Informants
LPSA - Local Public Service Agreement
OCU - Police Occupational Command Unit
PCA - Pre-Charge Advice
PTR - Pre Trial Review
VS - Victim Support
WCC - Wolverhampton City Council
WDVF - Wolverhampton Domestic Violence Forum
WMP - West Midlands Police
WSDVC - Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court
29 January 2011 Page 5
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
E. Executive Summary
E1 This report relates the findings from a baseline study of the effectiveness of the
Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court during the timeframe of 1 April 2004
– 31 March 2005, with Protection and Justice being the specific strategy focus for the
evaluation.
E2 There has been local discussion around achieving stretch targets under the Local Public
Service Agreement (LPSA) around DV. With recent changes with regard to the WSDVC
there is a concern to set realistic targets. In turn, the rationale for the baseline study
reported here was to provide data in order to set a local target for Wolverhampton.
E3 The main objectives were therefore to explore:
The impact of WSDVC arrangements on the speed, quality and outcomes of DV cases;
The working of the WSDVC in practice, from the perspectives of CJS and multi-agency
staff; and
The perceptions of victims, survivors and their advocates regarding support throughout the
process.
E4 In turn, the study aimed to evaluate:
The number of cases where there are repeat victims;
The number of offenders brought to justice;
The number of DV complaints translated into charges;
The number of ‘not guilty’ pleas by alleged perpetrators;
The number of cases where DV incidents have resulted in an arrest (where there is a
power of arrest); and
The number of victims receiving a speedy and effective support service in cases of DV with
regard to CJ support.
E5 The research therefore took a multi-method approach in order to capture the success or
otherwise of the WSDVC in both quantitative and qualitative terms, namely:
Analysis of all available statistical data;
Key informant interviews with CJS and voluntary and community sector staff engaged
with DV cases throughout Wolverhampton; and
Telephone interviews with victims and survivors of DV who have previously (and/or
recently) attended the WSDVC.
E6 The chief sources of statistical data were obtained from The Haven Wolverhampton,
Criminal Justice Support Services Co-ordinator (CJSSC), WMP, CPS, AWAAZ, VS, and
Wolverhampton County Council Homeless Services. In turn, a total of 13 key informants
and 8 DV survivors participated in interviews.
E7 Analysis of all the available statistical data reveals inconsistencies within monitoring,
recording and information sharing between agencies. This are perhaps indicative of higher
tier strategic management of different agencies’ systems that is perhaps unchangeable on
an immediate basis. However, in general, statistical findings can be viewed as illustrating
29 January 2011 Page 6
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
positive progression for the WSDVC in terms of its stated aims and achievement towards
projected targets: expeditious processing of cases, decreased re-victimisation, slightly
more offenders brought to justice and reduced initial not guilty pleas. However, the
number of DV incidents which are translated into charges remains very low. It is yet to be
seen whether PCA will have a lasting effect on the number of offenders brought to justice.
E8 Many key informants viewed the working of the WSDVC from a very positive point of
view, in that all agencies appear to be working very effectively together in order to
support the requirements of DV victims. However, there still appears to be little accurate
knowledge or understanding of the role of other agencies and the extent to which other
agencies are on board with the ethos of the court, e.g., Social Services, Protect, and the
Probation service. Training is once more seen as a major issue, particularly in respect to
Magistrates and prosecutors, and is a feature of the working of the WSDVC that needs to
be further and continually addressed.
E9 DV victims themselves view the WSDVC as supportive and empowering in that they are
provided with a great deal of information and one-to-one support in order for them to
feel secure in progressing a prosecution. The support they have received is viewed as vital
in helping them to accommodate to new situations. Having said that, there is still somewhat
of a concern over the extent to which they are provided with timely and prompt
information at the point of incident.
E10 Although this evaluation has highlighted many areas in which the WSDVC has confidently
progressed from its initial beginnings in 2002, data have indicated the way in which
further improvements may in fact be recommended. These may best be summarised as
follows:
E11 Some voluntary and community support groups, particularly geared to helping support
victims of DV (e.g., AWAAZ), require additional resources to retain a specialist DV worker
to provide immediate and ongoing high-quality and dedicated help, support and
advocacy to Asian DV survivors. Current practice on the ground merely comprises referring
on to other agencies for support when this might be better placed in the same community
group/setting appropriate to the victim’s requirements.
E12 A persistent problem throughout research evaluations on DV has been the collection of
reliable statistical data. Multi-agency working and partnerships are vital to the success of
any social policy endeavour, and it is recommended that partners work to common
definitions, with shared and common recording strategies (such as electronic databases),
agreed and applied consistently. Given that the CPS and police operate with different
electronic databases/systems which are restricted to one another, and that the magistrates
court operate on three systems, it is recommended that serious thought be given to
strategically linking databases or to constructing a more elaborate system, better
designed for contemporary need. It is highly recommended that a steering group
comprising every statutory and voluntary agency involved in DV be set up in order to
address this issue as an urgent priority.
E13 The qualitative data have shown that there is a pressing need for quality and accurate
information from the outset of any DV incident, particularly including information and
advice on the CJS as well as acute issues such as housing matters. Verbally articulated
information cannot be absorbed in times of acute crises and a complete, comprehensive
written guide in relation to legal matters, counselling services and other support agencies,
including what is and what is not available (particularly for working victims or victims who
29 January 2011 Page 7
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
own their own homes) is therefore needed and is in fact paramount to providing an
effective support mechanism from the outset of any DV-related incident. Such a document
could be drawn up and provided by attending officers for victims to read as the crisis
abates.
E14 There is a need for police accompaniment back to the marital/family home in order to
collect personal belongings. This service is available for victims of DV but is not standard
practice in relation to perpetrators. This would give survivors space in which to begin to
rebuild their lives, as well as providing support for the perpetrator in order to offset any
further incidents.
E15 Immigration and child abduction issues were raised as an issue in that victims are not
provided with adequate legal information on residency issues when the partner is an
immigrant and there are genuine fears of child abduction. Key informants appeared to
lack understanding of these issues, mainly due the fact that they seldom come across such a
case. However, this will no doubt be an increasing problem in the foreseeable future and it
is recommended that training incorporate this as a matter of great importance.
E16 There are instances in which the 0845 police telephone number is inaccessible and victims
who require immediate communication find the service ineffective. DV victims have
proposed that a direct line to DV police officer is provided in order to access immediate
help and support instead of the 0845 number currently used. It became apparent that
there is no funding available for magistrates’ specialist training courses. Given the
specialist nature of the WSDVC, it would seem essential for such training to be offered
and taken up.
29 January 2011 Page 8
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
1. Introduction and Context
1.1 This report relates the findings from a baseline study of the effectiveness of the WSDVC
during the timeframe of 1 April 2004 – 31 March 2005, with Protection and Justice
being the specific strategy focus for the evaluation.
1.2 There is now a common definition of domestic violence (DV), as understood and used
across Government, the Association of Chief Police Officers and governmental agencies,
wider than the Home Office definition and incorporating family members both over 18 as
well as between adults who are, or were, intimate partners. This is particularly relevant for
BEME communities in relation to forced marriages and ‘honour crimes’. DV is therefore now
defined as:
‘Any incident of threatening behaviour, violence or abuse (psychological,
physical, sexual, financial or emotional) between adults who are or have been
intimate partners or family members, regardless of gender or sexuality’1.
1.3 Wolverhampton Domestic Violence Forum (WDVF) is currently reviewing its DV strategy
for Wolverhampton. Four broad areas for focus include:
Everyone’s Business - Making DV everyone’s business in Wolverhampton through
strategy, policy and training.
Prevention and Awareness – Preventing and raising awareness of DV through community
and education based approaches as to the unacceptability of DV in Wolverhampton.
Protection and Justice – Continuing the partnership arrangements in Wolverhampton’s
Specialist Domestic Violence Court (WSDVC) to ensure speedy and effective justice and a
co-ordinated support service for victims.
Support Services – Providing accommodation and appropriate support services both to
survivors of DV and their children.
1.4 The WSDVC was officially launched in September 2002 with the clustering of all DV cases
to be heard in the Magistrates court on Tuesday each week. The principles of the model
were to embrace a supportive and empowering approach to victims and to build upon the
commitment and partnership working of West Midlands Police (WMP), the Crown
Prosecution Service (CPS), Magistrates Court staff and other Criminal Justice (CJ) services,
to find more effective ways to process DV cases.
1.5 The aims of the WSDVC were agreed by the Steering Group2 in July 2002, reflecting the
need for it to achieve concrete, positive outcomes for victims and survivors of domestic
abuse. The court’s stated aims are to:
Increase the percentage of DV complaints which are translated into charges;
Reduce the number of ‘not guilty’ pleas by alleged perpetrators;
Reduce the percentage of retracted statements that are made by victims;
Reduce the attrition rate in cases of DV, as they proceed through the CJ process; and
Over the longer term, reduce the incidence of repeat victimisation.
1 Domestic Violence: A National Report (March 2005).
2 Membership of the Steering Group may be found in Annex 1.
29 January 2011 Page 9
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
1.6 Pre-Charge Advice
It was hoped that some of the WSDVCs stated aims would be met by the introduction of
Pre-Charge Advice (PCA) in August 2004. The advent of PCA led to WMP improving their
evidence-gathering systems, thereby ensuring that fewer cases fail as they proceed
through the Criminal Justice System (CJS). PCA is now mandatory in all cases of DV.
However, it has also led to the reduction in the number of DV cases that result in charge,
subsequently reducing the number of entries into the WSDVC. The good practice
exemplified by the WSDVC with regard to partnership working must be continued,
notwithstanding the fewer cases of DV being charged due to the advent of PCA, as it has
been shown in other areas which promote PCA, that the lower level of charges reverts
back to its original status within the first 6 months of implementation.
1.7 Repeat Victimisation
The constant level of 30% DV cases in Wolverhampton, being the previous measure of
effectiveness of policing in Wolverhampton, has now been removed from the Policing Plan,
being replaced with measures around arrest and bringing offenders to justice.
Notwithstanding, both Occupational Command Units (OCU) in Wolverhampton, G1 and
G2, will continue to monitor the level of repeat victimisation, and to use this as a measure
of performance on a local level. The significant reduction in repeat victimisation through
the introduction of the WSDVC3 can be seen as testament to the measure of partnership
working within Wolverhampton.
1.8 Retractions
It has been agreed by the WDVF that the number of victim retractions will continue to be
monitored as such information provides an understanding of the case from the victim’s
point of view. One of the core principles of the WSDVC is to provide a supportive
environment for victims within the CJS. Such a supportive environment includes allowing
victims to make their own choices, whilst providing them with information about their
options and possible consequences of the choices they make.
1.9 Local Public Service Agreement (LPSA) - Rationale for study
There has been discussion around achieving stretch targets under the Local Public Service
Agreement (LPSA) around DV. With recent changes with regard to the WSDVC there is a
concern to set realistic targets. In turn, the rationale for the baseline study reported here
was to provide data in order to set a local target for Wolverhampton. Subsequently, the
following targets around DV have been proposed by the WDVF:
Overall Outcome/Goal – To reduce the number of repeat victims of DV to a level of 25%
or less by 2008.
Targets – To train 300 frontline service providers to provide better services to victims of
DV, using a model of training that is agreed by DV strategic partners; to increase the
percentage of victims expressing satisfaction with the advocacy and support they received
and agreeing that this support has helped to make them safe; and to increase the
percentage of offenders charged brought to justice.
3 See Cook (2003)
29 January 2011 Page 10
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
2. Research Aims and Methods
2.1 Given the targets and outcomes proposed above, the study aimed to set a new baseline
for the WSDVC and co-ordinated support services, by evaluating the progress and
effectiveness of the WSDVC over a one-year period between the timeframe 1 April 2004
and 31 March 2005 in relation to a number of key issues. The main objectives were
therefore to explore:
The impact of WSDVC arrangements on the speed, quality and outcomes of DV cases;
The working of the WSDVC in practice, from the perspectives of CJS and multi-agency
staff; and
The perceptions of victims, survivors and their advocates regarding support throughout the
process.
2.2 In turn, the study aimed to evaluate:
The number of cases where there are repeat victims;
The number of offenders brought to justice;
The number of DV complaints translated into charges;
The number of ‘not guilty’ pleas by alleged perpetrators;
The number of cases where DV incidents have resulted in an arrest (where there is a
power of arrest); and
The number of victims receiving a speedy and effective support service in cases of DV with
regard to CJ support.
2.3 The research therefore took a multi-method approach in order to capture the success or
otherwise of the WSDVC in both quantitative and qualitative terms, namely:
Analysis of all available statistical data;
Key informant interviews with CJS and voluntary and community sector staff engaged
with DV cases throughout Wolverhampton; and
Telephone interviews with victims and survivors of DV who have previously (and/or
recently) attended the WSDVC.
2.4 This being so, hard statistical data were supported by softer data in terms of perceptions
of the quality and effectiveness of the WSDVC and of support provided to victims
experiencing the court, together with any perceived gaps in provision. The chief sources of
statistical data were obtained from:
The Haven Wolverhampton – referrals and admissions (of women and children) to the
Haven refuge accommodation in Wolverhampton during the specified timeframe;
Criminal Justice Support Services Co-ordinator (CJSSC) – comprehensive data sets on
WSDVC cases throughout the specified timeframe;
WMP – total number of victims of DV (and repeat victims) in Wolverhampton over the
specified timeframe;
CPS – case records for total DV cases streamlined through the WSDVC over the specified
timeframe, together with sample of case files for analysis;
AWAAZ – number/source of referrals each month, religion, first language spoken, and
relationship to perpetrator;
VS – referral source, gender, age, ethnicity and first language spoken; and
29 January 2011 Page 11
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
Wolverhampton County Council (WCC) Homeless Services – complete breakdown of DV
figures for the evaluation timeframe.
2.5 In turn, a total of 13 key informants and 8 DV survivors participated in interviews.
29 January 2011 Page 12
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
3. Findings: The Statistical Data
3.1 The statistical data were gathered by various means and it was hoped to triangulate
these data through merging data files according to Police Unique Reference Numbers.
However, it became apparent that this would prove impossible due to the mismatch
between different agencies’ recording procedures and monitoring forms. Nevertheless,
what emerged were data particularly pertinent to the aims and objectives of the study,
therefore, for clarity, data will be presented according to these aims.
3.2 CPS staff provided much help and support throughout the research process and provided
data from various sources. Due to the limited timeframe allocated to this study, some data
were collected through the CPS databases and complemented by information accessed
through ‘Victim and Witness Care Initiative WMP and CPS Joint Monitoring Forms’.
Because these monitoring forms covered a limited time period, it was necessary to draw on
information directly from case files, subsequently accessed through GI and G2 OCUs.
Total figures were therefore supplemented by richer data contained within paper files.
Consequently, there were instances in which all data pertaining to specific cases were
available whilst other cases were not so complete. Out of a total number of flagged DV
cases of 280, the location of 29 files of completed cases were unaccountable, although
they have been included in the final count.
3.3 The impact of WSDVC arrangements on the processing speed of DV cases
3.3.1 The CPS proved to be a good source of data in evaluating the speed of the WSDVC in
practice. Table 1 below shows that nearly 29% of all DV cases are presented to court
between 1 and 2 months, which demonstrates an expeditious CJ process.
Table 1: Approximate length of time to prosecution or finalisation of cases
Timeframe Frequency Percent
1-2 months 81 28.9
2-3 months 62 22.1
3-4 months 48 17.1
4-5 months 11 3.9
5-6 months 15 5.4
Over 6 months 13 4.7
Unknown 50 17.9
Total 280 100
3.3.2 However, there do appear to be instances in which individual cases have more than one
court hearing4, resulting in the case perhaps lasting several months. The CJSSC data
showed that the average number of court hearings per case was 2 to 3 which, in effect,
means that delays may be experienced due to a variety of reasons (perhaps pre-sentence
report, adjournment, etc).
4 See Annex 6 for CJSSC data.
29 January 2011 Page 13
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
3.4 The number of cases where there are repeat victims
3.4.1 The evaluation aimed to reveal the extent to which repeat victimisation figures may have
changed since the advent of the WSDVC. WMP supplied data pertaining to repeat
victimisation in Wolverhampton as Tables below illustrate, Table 2 providing the total
number of repeat DV incidents in Wolverhampton, with Table 3 providing percentage
rates of repeat victimisation.
Table 2: Total DV repeat victimisation recorded by WMP, 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005*.
2004 2005
APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR TOTAL
G1 54 30 37 15 58 31 34 45 37 26 25 30 422
G2 54 40 40 67 18 71 33 45 30 71 53 43 565
TOTAL 108 70 77 82 76 102 67 90 67 97 78 73 987
Table 3: Repeat rates of DV recorded by WMP, 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005 (rounded
figures)*.
2004 2005
APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR
G1 33% 24% 27% 24% 28% 28% 26% 27% 28% 27% 27% 25%
G2 33% 35% 31% 34% 55% 33% 34% 32% 39% 37% 41% 26%
3.4.2 Overall, the average rate of recorded repeat victimisation in Wolverhampton stands at
31%. Comparing figures across the last 3 years, we can see that the figures for repeat
victimisation fell dramatically then rose slightly. Figure 1 below compares data from
2001/2, 2002/3 and 2004/5.
Figure 1: Chart illustrating changes in repeat DV victimisation over the past years
1400
1200
1000
Frequency
800
600
400
200
0
2001/2 2002/3 2004/5
Year
3.4.3 The CPS data also supplied information on repeat victimisation. Table 4 below shows that,
according to CPS data sources, 15% of DV survivors were repeat victims. However, this
29 January 2011 Page 14
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
figure must be treated with caution due to 74% of cases in which inaccurate or missing
data were observed.
Table 4: CPS recorded repeat victims between April 2004 and March 2005
Recorded response Frequency Percentage
Yes 42 15
No 30 11
Unsure 208 74
Total 280 100
3.4.4 However, problems are associated with these figures as ‘repeat’ victimisation refers to
victims who have previously been victim to a crime, perpetrated by either the same or a
different individual, and regardless as to whether or not it had been DV-related. In
addition, there are no figures available for repeat perpetration of DV as a discreet
category5. Neither do these figures take into account self-reported re-victimisation, relying
instead upon whether a police record had been kept in regard to previous incidences for
that person6.
3.5 The number of DV complaints translated into charges
3.5.1 Whilst WMP provided data on the total number of DV-related records for the required
timeframe for both OCUs, CPS data provided the total number of complaints that were
translated into charges over the same timeframe. Table 5 below therefore illustrates the
total recorded figures of DV in Wolverhampton by month, and Table 6 illustrates the total
charges brought by the CPS over the same timeframe by month.
Table 5: Total DV-related incidents recorded by WMP, 1 April 2004 and 31 March 2005*7.
2004 2005
APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR TOTAL
G1 166 123 136 62 206 112 131 169 131 98 94 120 1548
G2 162 123 128 200 33 215 96 141 78 191 129 163 1659
TOTAL 328 246 264 262 239 327 227 310 209 289 223 283 3207
Table 6: CPS charges by month
2004 2005
APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR
1st charge 25 46 18 33 24 21 14 9 3 1 u/k u/k
2nd charge 11 15 8 15 9 7 0 1 1 0 u/k u/k
3rd charge 3 1 4 8 4 2 0 0 1 0 u/k u/k
TOTAL 39 62 30 56 37 30 14 10 5 1 u/k u/k
5 However, see Annex 6 (CJSSC data) with regard to monitoring of ‘Known DV Perpetrators’.
6 Some victims of DV remain with a violent partner throughout many violent incidences without reporting them to the police. It is therefore
questionable as to whether the ‘final straw’, the reported incident itself, is recorded as a ‘repeat’.
7 Data recorded and supplied for evaluation by WMP as on 1 April 2005.
29 January 2011 Page 15
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
Figure 2: Total charges (1st, 2nd and 3rd) brought by the CPS between April 2004 and March
2005
Charges per Month
50
40
Frequency
1st
30 2nd
20 3rd
10
0
ct
g
c
ly
b
p
n
ne
il
ay
v
ch
De
Ja
r
No
Fe
Au
Se
O
Ju
Ap
ar
Ju
M
M
Months
Figure 3: Comparison of total DV incidents (WMP data) and total number of charges brought
(CPS data) by month
Comparison of incidents versus charges
400
300
Frequency
Total incidents (WMP data)
200
Total charges brought (CPS
100 data)
0
Apr
Sep
Jan
Feb
Dec
Mar
May
Nov
Aug
Jul
Jun
Oct
Months
3.5.2 Given that the total number of cases dealt with by the CPS over the same timeframe was
2808, this amounts to 8.7% of reported incidents of DV being brought to the attention of
the CPS. Of these, a total of 1279 referrals were made to the CJSSC. These figures may
be complemented by those collated by the CJSSC, which show that the total number of
court cases overall (most DV cases will have more than one court hearing) amounts to 318.
3.5.3 Although there appears to be a distinct lack of charges brought by the CPS, steadily
decreasing from October 2004 onwards, these figures are skewed by analysing only
completed cases over the timeframe of the evaluation.
8 See Annex 6.
9 See Annex 6.
29 January 2011 Page 16
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
3.5.4 In addition, it was hoped that data with regard to PCA might have had an effect on the
number of incidents which are translated into charges. However, data in this regard were
unreliable due to weak file recording. For instance, CPS data showed how in many
instances, the recording of PCA was unnoticeable even though measures had been put in
place to record the issue of PCA on paper files, as Table 7 indicates.
Table 7: Number of cases in which PCA was requested by the police
Recording Frequency Percentage
Yes 11 4
No 73 26
Unsure 196 70
Total 280 100
3.6 The number of offenders brought to justice
3.6.1 The following table (Table 8) provides an illustrative account of the type of sentence
received over a comparison of 2 years, 2002/3 and 2004/5. Significantly, there
appears to have been a far greater number of sentences imposed as a result of recent
changes in the court system, particularly in terms of restraining orders and bindovers,
according to data supplied by the CJSSC. However, this table clearly exemplifies the
distinct inconsistencies between data sets, which signals the need for greater clarity,
monitoring and information sharing between agencies.
Table 8: Comparison of sentence by type
Sentence 2002/3 2004/5 2004/5
CJSSC data CJSSC data CPS data
Acquittal after trial 9
Bindover 43 127 18
CPO 10 6 5
CRO 12 5
Compensation order 1 27 25
Conditional Discharge 20 15 11
Custodial sentence 4 3 11
Discontinued/Dismissed 40 90 74
Fine 7 4 7
Found not guilty 6 8 7
NEO 40 30 54
Perpetrators programme 1
Restraining order 127
Unknown outcome 51
Total 171 450 277
3.6.2 There are particular problems around the number of offenders being brought to justice,
chiefly due to witness non-attendance at court or victims retracting their statements for a
number of reasons. The data, although once more inconsistent, show that the number of
court attendances by victims has increased, as has the number of retractions. For example,
29 January 2011 Page 17
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
CPS data from 2004/5 show that 14% of DV victims attended court, whilst data from
previous research10 indicated that 6 out of 171 cases (only 4%) of victims attended court.
3.6.3 Similarly, data referring to victim retractions remain at relatively high levels in relation to
previous available information. For example, CPS data show that 33% of victims
retracted their statements, whilst CJSSC data records a rate of 45%. Notwithstanding,
these figures overall indicate a decrease compared with the figure on retractions for
2003 (44%).
3.7 The number of ‘not guilty’ pleas by alleged perpetrators
3.7.1 It was hoped that the advent of PCA would reduce the number of not guilty pleas as
charges would have sound evidence with which to uphold them in court. However, the data
on PCA was sparse enough to preclude this aspect from the analysis. To illustrate the
number of not guilty pleas offered by alleged DV perpetrators, data from the CPS and
CJSSC are compared in Figure 4 below.
Figure 4: Comparison of not guilty pleas (CPS and CJSSC data)
CJSSC data
Data source
Unknown/no plea entered
Not guilty
Guilty
CPS data
0 50 100 150
Frequency
The number of not guilty pleas appears to have reduced, when compared recent CJSSC data with
previous data (2002/3 – 105; 2004/5 – 89).
3.8 The Haven Data
3.8.1 Data from the Haven refuge were limited due to more comprehensive information not
having been verified by the Board at the time of requesting data. However, Table 9
below details the total number of referrals made to the Haven refuge with regard to both
women and their children against the number of actual admittances during the timeframe
of the evaluation.
10 See Cook (2003).
29 January 2011 Page 18
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
Table 9: Total number of referrals and admissions to The Haven refuge from April 2004 to
March 2005
Referrals Admissions
Women Children Total Women Children Total
1264 1066 2330 236 244 480
54% 46% 100% 49% 51% 100%
19% of women 23% of children 21% of all
Total referred referred referrals
When compared with previous data, it would appear that the total number of admissions to the
refuge has fallen11.
3.9 Homelessness Services (WCC) Data
3.9.1 Often, DV results in the victim (and children) requiring alternative accommodation and it
was considered important to gather data from WCC in this respect to provide a more
complete picture of the results of DV within Wolverhampton. DV cases have a statutory
duty to be re-housed. A full breakdown of DV applications and acceptances between
April 2004 and March 2005 were provided. The total number of people accepted full re
housing duty with regard to DV totalled 189. When compared with previous years (see
Table 10 and Figure 5 below), it would seem that the number of accepted DV-related
applications to WCC for accommodation fluctuates and past figures indicate that reasons
for homelessness included very high rates of DV12.
Table 10: WCC DV housing application acceptances for the past 4 years
2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005
Number of DV cases accepted 150 203 171 189
Figure 5: Total acceptances of DV-related applications for accommodation by WCC
250
200
Frequency
150 Total DV acceptances by
100 WCC
50
0
2001/2 2002/3 2003/4 2004/5
Year
11 Jan-Dec 2001 590, Jan-Dec 2002 657, Jan Jun 2003 313 (Cook, 2003).
12 See Cook (2003).
29 January 2011 Page 19
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
3.10 AWAAZ Data
3.10.1 The data from AWAAZ are included in this report in order to provide contextual relevance
to the BEME groups residing within Wolverhampton whose needs with regard to DV are
different to the majority. AWAAZ is a voluntary organisation whose objectives are to
support minority ethnic women, break down barriers and increase access to training,
further education, and employment. They also assist women by providing a counselling,
information and advice service. To summarise, AWAAZ provided services over the
specified timeframe of the study to the following women:
28 Asian women were referred to AWAAZ as a result of DV;
The majority of referrals spoke Punjabi as their first language;
The majority were of the Sikh religion; and
In many cases, the perpetrator was either the husband or the husband together with
the wife’s in-laws.
3.10.2 However, the data were not explicit with regard to what advice was given or whether
such advice was successful. This may have implications for future monitoring practices which
would enhance sustainability of the project.
3.10.3 Compared with previous figures, the number of referrals to AWAAZ appears to have
lessened overall. For example, within an 8-month timeframe (between March and October
2003), AWAAZ received 25 referrals, whereas recent data show the total number of
referrals over a 12-month period to be 28. Of these 28 referrals, 17 self-referred to
AWAAZ, indicating the apparent lack of agency referrals.
3.11 Victim Support Data
3.11.1 VS provided data with regard to referral source, gender, age, ethnicity and first
language of DV clients throughout the specified timeframe. Table 11 shows the source of
referrals to VS.
Table 11: VS Total Referral Sources, 1 April 2004 – 31 March 2005
Referral Source Number of Referrals
Police 1260
Self-referral 76
Other Victim Support Branch 46
Other Agency 25
Other Source 72
TOTAL 1479
3.11.2 These figures show that police referrals have significantly reduced over recent years
compared with VS data provided for the previous evaluation13, from 1565 to 1260. In
addition, self-referrals have increased from 55 to 76, as have referrals from other VS
branches, from 38 to 46. Disregarding police referrals, the figure is 219. Of these, 53
were children aged 15 and under who would not have been the injured party. Therefore
the remaining figure of 166 has been broken down by VS staff as in Tables 12 and 13
below.
13 See Cook (2003).
29 January 2011 Page 20
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
Table 12: VS Non-Police Referrals by Age and Gender, 1 April 2004 – 31 March 2005
Age
Gender 16-18 19-30 31-50 51+ N/K TOTAL
Female 9 47 69 5 23 153
Male 1 2 3 2 5 13
Table 13: VS Non-Police Referrals by Ethnicity and Gender, 1 April 2004 – 31 March 2005
Ethnicity
Gender White Asian Black Caribbean Black African Chinese N/K
Female 64 17 17 0 0 55
Male 3 4 0 0 0 6
3.11.3 These figures show that the group most frequently supported by VS is white females aged
between 31-50. Comparing data from the previous evaluation once more, these figures
show that in general, the number of referrals to VS dipped slightly in 2002/3, then rose
significantly in 2004/5, as in Figure 6 below. Therefore, even though police referrals
decreased, the number of referrals to VS from other sources has significantly increased.
Figure 6: Comparison of Total VS Referrals from 2001/2, 2002/3 and 2004/5
160
140
120 153
100
110
80 95
60
40
20
0
Total Referrals 2001/2 Total Referrals 2002/3 Total Referrals 2004/5
3.12 Summary of statistical data
Analysis of all the available statistical data reveals inconsistencies within monitoring,
recording and information sharing between agencies. This is perhaps indicative of higher
tier strategic management of different agencies’ systems that are perhaps unchangeable
on an immediate basis. However, in general, statistical findings can be viewed as
illustrating positive progression for the WSDVC in terms of its stated aims and achievement
towards projected targets: expeditious processing of cases, decreased re-victimisation,
slightly more offenders brought to justice and reduced initial not guilty pleas. However, the
29 January 2011 Page 21
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
number of DV incidents which are translated into charges remains very low. It is yet to be
seen whether PCA will have a lasting effect on the number of offenders brought to justice.
29 January 2011 Page 22
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
4. Findings: The Qualitative Data
In order to capture the success or otherwise of the WSDVC in qualitative terms, key informant
interviews with CJS and voluntary and community sector staff engaged with DV cases throughout
Wolverhampton; and telephone interviews with victims and survivors of DV who have previously
(and/or recently) attended the WSDVC were carried out. These will be reported separately
below.
4.1 Practitioner Views on the WSDVC
4.1.1 In order to confirm or refute what the hard data were revealing, it was considered crucial
to obtain the views and experiences of practitioners who work closely with the WSDVC. A
total of 13 people working in the CJ and support agencies were subsequently interviewed
either by telephone or face-to-face14. A considerable amount of valuable information was
obtained and analysed according to key emergent themes. Although some respondents
have no direct experience with the court itself, they were able to provide anecdotal
evidence from victims and other agency personnel as to its effectiveness on many counts.
The majority of respondents referred to the following themes:
4.1.2 Facilitation of effective joint working
All agencies have worked well together and continue to do so.
Pooling of resources ensures common knowledge and understanding.
A very strong steering committee ensures good partnerships, both in and outside regular
meetings.
The WSDVC has been very successful and well used by both victims and agencies.
Good, effective and open lines of communication within the courtroom itself.
Communication between CPS and WMP has improved which has led to better quality
information coming into court.
Since the CJSSC has been based at the police station, referrals come much quicker.
Not so effective in partnership with Protect, and there are issues around awareness of
sexual exploitation and gun crime within DV.
More experienced and specialist DV prosecutors are required.
Police sometimes bail to the normal court which does not meet the objectives of the
WSDVC.
Information sharing protocols do not include databases so joint working is sometimes
incredibly hard to achieve.
Information is sometimes not passed onto WCC homelessness services.
Magistrates should have more specialised training in order for joint working to be more
effective. That training needs to be targeted at a small number of Magistrates who should
preside at court more often.
4.1.3 Collaborative working
The work of the WSDVC shows that when partnerships work positively people can achieve
good work together.
14 See Annex 3 for list of key informants and Annex 2 for interview schedule.
29 January 2011 Page 23
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
The CPS has little knowledge of the sum of support agencies operating within
Wolverhampton. There needs to be a shared understanding of all parties’ roles in order to
achieve a more effective referral system.
There was a general feeling that Social Services could be providing more of an input to
the working of the court.
This was also in regard to the probation service (although they are now on board with the
new perpetrator’s programme), as well as BEME representation on the WDVF.
The DV Sanctuary Project at Low Hill has had little to do with the new court.
4.1.4 Court experiences
Physical accommodation
Overall, there were mixed responses as to the status of physical accommodation at the court:
The Magistrates court is not ideal – County Court is better suited to private rooms.
It’s an old building and people have to work within the confines of that.
An adjoining link between the witness room and court 9 ensures no contact with the
defendant.
Witnesses have somewhere comfortable to sit, with magazines and television. Protection
and privacy is ensured within that.
Having said that, other respondents stated that victims and witnesses both sit in the same
area (no segregation) and conversations may be overheard.
A separate entrance is not freely available and has to be requested by the victim.
Court 9 is intimidating as the room is very big with bad acoustics and the magistrates sit
high up. This results, once more, in the victim feeling lower in status with a mismatch of
power between the victim and others.
Speed (or not) of the process
It was generally felt that the speed of the process was not too good, which appears to contradict
the statistical data:
The process is quicker in many cases due to fast-tracking of DV but others may take a long
time.
It’s a lengthy process – meanwhile victims are subjected to further violence.
Police bail dates sometimes cause unnecessary delays, then a finding of ‘guilty’ results in
an adjournment for PSR which takes 3 weeks.
However, from the perspective of a representative of the CJ system, DV trials can be
listed within 4-6 weeks – ‘that’s quick summary justice’.
DV victims’ expectations of the WSDVC
The majority of responses were most favourable with regard to victims knowing what to expect
from the court, although there were a few provisos:
Pre-court visits are now offered, victims are encouraged to sit through a trial, they are
shown around and told what to expect in the court itself. But this has only happened over
the last few weeks.
Discretion is the key word and victims are shown where to enter the back door of the court.
The Witness Care Unit at the CPS has stepped into the breech here and provide good
information and updates.
This usually depends on the solicitor – a good one will provide all the information the
victim needs.
29 January 2011 Page 24
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
The police don’t tend to provide any useful information to victims about what to expect at
court.
Not all victims are reached before they go to court, but we are still in a better position
than before.
First time victims are not aware of the support on offer. Fear of the perpetrator and fear
of the unknown may prevent them from attending.
Victims’ expectations about the system affects whether they’re satisfied with the service
they received.
Support and information provided (initially and on case progress)
The widely held view of the quality of support and information/updates was that both are good:
We give victims as much support as they want and even go to court with them.
Training has been provided and been received in aspects of DV so more people in
support services are aware of the issues.
But for those who fall through the net for whatever reason, they might not feel that support
was there.
Some agencies do not know what others provide by way of support and information
updates.
Following charge, the Officer in Charge at the police station does not contact the victim
with details of the charge – communication breakdown there which needs to be
addressed.
Support workers are at court on Tuesdays, but for cases listed on other days, there may
be no support. There is generally a lack of information sharing with victims.
4.1.5 Likelihood and speed of retractions
Overall, respondents were very unsure as to whether the advent of the WSDVC had made
any significant impact on the likelihood and/or speed of retractions being made before
going to court. In fact, they generally believed that victims were less likely to make
retractions than before. The following factors may be seen as the general opinions of
practitioner respondents with regard to why victims are likely to retract their original
statement:
There have been no significant changes in the rate of retraction due to fear of the
perpetrator.
‘I can’t see how anything can remove that fear…no measures can eradicate the fear
completely’.
‘What has improved is the fact that they know what measures are in place to protect
them’.
There have been no significant changes in the rate of retraction due to fear of
repercussions from the perpetrator’s family, the victim’s own family and the
community.
‘This is one area that on-one has control over – it is not the job of the court’.
‘Even if the perpetrator is sent to prison, the family are still there to make life hell for
the victim’.
In addition, there have been no significant changes in the rate of retractions due to fear of
damaging family status and honour.
29 January 2011 Page 25
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
‘In Wolverhampton we do try and communicate in different languages and tell people
what help is out there for them, but I think that fear will always be there’.
‘This is focused on the Asian community and this is where most retractions take place –
we need more dedicated work on this’.
The situation has been improved with regard to fear of losing children.
‘Victims are now given more information and realistic points about what is going to
happen to them and their children. Even if Social Services are involved, it is
emphasised over and over again that the idea is to keep the family together’.
Furthermore, the situation has been very much improved in respect to fear of and lack of
information about criminal and civil proceedings.
‘There is more information provided about the process’.
‘The Witness Care Unit provides information on criminal processes definitely’.
In turn, the rate of retractions due to lack of information about the progress of their case
has been significantly improved.
‘Once in the system, they get all the information they need’.
‘This has been a joint effort – the CJSSC and DV officers work together to ensure
this’.
Mixed responses were given with regard to whether the rate of retractions has changed
due to delays in bringing cases to trial.
‘Pre Charge Advice has helped’.
‘They take forever and by that time they do change their mind’.
‘It’s not the fault of the court, but bail dates are ridiculous’.
Noticeably, there was little comprehensive understanding of how police manage bail
conditions, this having the result of not much knowledge about how this would affect a
victim’s decision to retract.
‘Wording on the bail document needs to be more specific’.
A feeling of vulnerability in court is one further reason for victim retraction that appears
to be improving.
‘Victims may be separate from the perpetrator and not even see him (sic)’.
Finally, immigration status as an issue with regard to the rate of retraction was an issue
that not many respondents could reply to adequately.
‘I’ve only had one case where that was an issue and that was with the defendant
really’.
4.1.6 Respondents from key agencies commented on the number of cases that have proceeded
through the CJS regardless of the victim having retracted their statement before going to
court. These responses included:
29 January 2011 Page 26
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
‘A few. I don’t know an exact number’.
‘Originally it was two but that number has risen now and we have lost count’.
‘I don’t know. It could be under ten or maybe more’.
Such inconsistencies between individuals/agencies in knowledge (in terms of monitoring
and information sharing) is one issue that needs to be addressed.
4.1.7 Introduction of Pre Charge Advice
Although not many respondents could form an opinion as they had little knowledge of
PCA, it was widely felt by respondents who had that the advent of PCA has had little
bearing on the number of charges and prosecutions of DV.
‘The number of recorded cases of DV has increased, however it is difficult to say why
this has happened – are there more victims coming forward or more victims of DV?’
In addition, there was uncertainty over whether PCA had resulted in more cases
proceeding through the CJ system. However:
‘It has had a huge impact, the reason being that the police are getting the charges
accurate to begin with and more people are pleading guilty at an earlier stage’.
Training, clear monitoring and information sharing was deemed vital in achieving
understanding in this area.
‘I’d like to know more about that process, for example, is it mandatory or do police
have the option to take up that advice. If they have the option, how many take up the
offer? Perpetrators are walking time-bombs due to bail conditions too. We need
more information on PCA’.
4.1.8 Achievements of the WSDVC in relation to its aims
Mixed responses were forthcoming as to whether these aims had been achieved. For
example:
‘It’s been a combination of things, the DV court, PCA, and the extra support that has
increased the number of DV complaints translated into charges’.
The commonly held view was that respondents could not tell for sure whether the SDVC
had in fact reduced the number of ‘not guilty’ pleas. There were a number of reasons for
this, namely solicitors might instruct the perpetrator to plead ‘not guilty’ in the hope that
the victim will retract, which is something the court cannot act upon. In contrast to that, the
police have been trained in the collection of evidence and take cameras to capture visual
evidence then they can take the case to court without the need for the victim to attend, thus
resulting in a plea of ‘guilty’. In addition, the reduction in the percentage of retractions
was also in doubt:
‘We have no figures as to the percentage of retractions made by victims. But we do
have a facility for victims to make their retraction statements at the court…not sure if
this has reduced the number coming through’.
29 January 2011 Page 27
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
‘We have a policy whereby we do not take retractions at court just in case the wrong
person turns up. Sometimes we don’t know what the victim looks like because we’ve
never met them before’.
To reduce the number of repeat victimisations was the long-term achievement of the court,
however respondents were once more wary as to whether this was being accomplished.
For example:
‘I’m not sure whether it has. There is no follow-up, no programme to measure this by
and I think this is the one we fall down on. We need to monitor this in conjunction with
the perpetrator programme…this survey would be good in a year’s time’.
4.1.9 Issues around the operation of the WSDVC in practice.
Good effective partnership working with a shared sense of purpose.
Police commitment is very good, both through individual workers, but now through central
government, with all police officers receiving DV training.
CPS commitment is good. Although there have been changes over the past few years,
specific workers are committed to it.
DV cases are still not flagged up accurately which leads to inefficient court listing.
Allied to this issue is that other prosecutions (rather than DV-related) going through the DV
court on Tuesdays, smaller, quicker cases (e.g., licensing) that can be pushed through
quickly.
More specialised DV prosecutors would ensure fair and swifter results.
Court staff commitment is also very good, given the present climate of huge changes and
new legislation to keep at the forefront of working practices.
Court arrangements (in terms of physical and operational issues) are average overall, and
workers work well with the facilities they’ve got.
Overall, resources are average to good, but when funding ends in March 2006, there will
be no other money coming in to support the work of the WSDVC.
Childcare resources are viewed as a priority need within the court as some cases may go
on all day.
Availability of support services is also viewed positively. This has been patchy between
one CJSSC leaving post and employing the next.
Joint training is viewed fairly positively, with issues heavily around Magistrates’
Governmental training requirements and the needs of the WSDVC.
‘I really admire the Magistrates. They’re all volunteers doing it in their own time, not
getting paid for it. But sometimes I’m a little disappointed at people’s general
knowledge about DV and in an ideal world we’d do continuous training all the time,
so I would really like Magistrates to attend more training really’.
The development of specialist advocacy and support services for victims were viewed
extremely positively by nearly all respondents. Trust has been built up between victims
and support workers. Situating all DV officers and the CJSSC together at the police station
has improved support services.
4.1.10 Future policy/strategic development
Funding needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency in order to keep the good work of
the WSDVC sustained.
29 January 2011 Page 28
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
WSDVC steering group should be recognised more at the Safer Wolverhampton
Partnership level and also delivery of outcomes at the Crime and Disorder Reduction
Strategy. A rep is needed at the steering group.
There needs to be a perpetrators’ programme – the court can only recommend it if there is
one to recommend. There needs to be justice from the victim’s point of view and
punishment from the perpetrator’s.
One CJSSC is not enough – there needs to be a team of them to be more effective.
It is recommended that the DV court should be a closed court to facilitate privacy and
confidentiality, and to prevent intimidation by the perpetrator’s friends and family.
Any future policy developments need to include victims themselves in a meaningful way.
4.1.11 Developments in working practices
‘We need to get our basics right, now, before we go any further. If we can get the
right court date, the right people at court, the right facilities and the right support
with childcare facilities, then we may be able to move on from there’.
The DV court should have a custody function to allow it to handle more serious cases than
at present.
Closer inter-agency work.
From a police perspective, DV perpetrators should be put before the court to be dealt
with at the earliest opportunity if not straight away.
Survivors of DV should be involved in support services, those who have been through the
new court. You cannot get any better than someone who knows the issues and the system
from the inside.
4.1.12 Other issues
Lack of treatment for perpetrators.
The court is run well but the funding issue needs to be addressed and resolved.
Training is a major issue across the board, to involve all agencies, and all personnel
involved with the WSDVC at any level and extent.
Victims should be provided with legal advice at the earliest possible opportunity.
4.1.13 Summary of practitioners’ views
Many respondents viewed the working of the WSDVC from a very positive point of view,
in that all agencies appear to be working very effectively together in order to support the
requirements of DV victims. However, there still appears to be little accurate knowledge or
understanding of the role of other agencies and the extent to which other agencies are on
board with the ethos of the court, e.g., Social Services, Protect, and the Probation Service.
Training is once more seen as a major issue, particularly in respect to Magistrates and
prosecutors, and is a feature of the working of the WSDVC that needs to be further and
continually addressed.
4.2 User views on the WSDVC
4.2.1 It was also considered crucial to obtain the views and experiences of DV survivors who
have experienced the WSDVC and related support structures in order to assess the
effectiveness and efficiency of services. A total of 8 DV survivors were subsequently
interviewed by telephone, following initial contact and agreement facilitated by key staff
29 January 2011 Page 29
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
in support agencies. The data, once more, were analysed according to key emergent
themes in respect to 3 distinct timeframes throughout the CJ process, namely: from
reporting the incident to being notified to attend court; from when notification had been
received, up until and including the day of hearing; and the time following the
proceedings. It transpired that 3 respondents did not attend the court itself for various
reasons. In the words of one individual:
‘Although I went to visit the court, I thought it would be too stressful to attend. I’ve
not done anything wrong and to go to court would have made me feel like a
criminal’.
4.2.2 However, although these individuals did not attend the court, nevertheless they were able
to provide valuable information as to the support services on many counts. The majority of
respondents referred to the following themes:
4.2.3 Stage 1: From reporting the incident to being notified to attend court
Positive experiences Negative experiences
Positive and speedy police response to scene of Making contact with police through the 0845
incident. number for updates.
Sensitive attitudes of some police officers. Insensitive attitudes of certain (female) attending
Timely information on legal information from officers, and little knowledge off past incidences.
police. Little communication between police/support
Information from the CPS on sources of support. services/victim resulting in delays in support.
Support from the Magistrates court was most CPS reactive instead of proactive in updates on
helpful up to the hearing. case progression.
Excellent personal support from VS service. Difficult to making initial contact with VS.
Counselling services at The Haven are considered More information is needed on legal issues in
to be an excellent source of help and support, respect to children and access.
particularly in regard to children’s issues. Victims need to be kept informed on a regular
Independent and objective advice and support, basis on case progression.
rather than family and friends. Offers of support and signposting appears
inconsistent between cases.
Repeated adjournments results in victims kept on
‘tenderhooks’.
Lack of support for some victims (particularly with
regard to housing/accommodation matters) meant
expensive solicitors’ bills.
Insensitive and uninformed GPs results in negative
downward spiral.
4.2.4 Stage 2: From when notification had been received, up until and including the day of
hearing
Positive experiences Negative experiences
Fairly speedy first hearing fixed with plenty of Little support up to the day of hearing, then much
time to prepare. provided on the day.
Pre-arranged court visits. Information provided (by all agencies) came too
Excellent support and information at the court late as it is needed well before then.
itself, especially from the CJSSC. Some victims are not shown where they may wait
29 January 2011 Page 30
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
Police presence and control at court is very in a separate room.
helpful. Lack of information on what to expect with regard
VS and WS extremely helpful on the day, to pleas of ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’.
listening and taking action on victims’ needs.
4.2.5 Stage 3: The time following the proceedings
Positive experiences Negative experiences
Good record keeping allows victims the relative Lengthy wait for police to update victims on case
comfort of key people knowing the case history. results.
CJSSC communication is good following the Ongoing help/support/counselling is needed as
hearing. victims sometimes feel ‘dropped’.
Having VS always there for victims provides
reassurance.
WCC excellent in providing appropriate and
timely accommodation if required.
4.2.6 Other issues
Respondents were then given the opportunity for an open feedback session in which they
were able to provide any further information they wished on the speed and quality of
support services. The major issues to arise for respondents are explained here,
complemented by direct quotations from respondents which clearly illustrate their views:
Reporting procedures
One respondent was both disappointed and angered to read of the case outcome in the
local newspaper. It appears that the press and media are aware of domestic cases and
report them without the consent of the injured party. This practice is one that perhaps
requires serious consideration given the aims of the WSDVC which are to reduce the
incidence of repeat victimisation. In the words of this respondent:
‘It would have been nice to have had a phone call or a letter to say what had
happened to him, rather than reading about it in the paper. It’s not just me but my
[child] and family as well that read about it. If there was a complaints procedure I
would have gone through it’.
Witness summons
Some victims of DV are not required to attend court, neither are they all summonsed to
appear. Although there are both positive and negative points in this regard, one
respondent considered it would have been more helpful had she been ‘required’ to attend:
‘I felt in a way that I wish I had been made to attend because then I would have had
the chance to put my point of view across, about all those other times. Had I been a
witness, then the sentence might have been greater’.
Personal support of a contemporary
It was felt that on occasion, young mothers who are victims of DV needed the help and
support of someone closer to their own age group, particularly someone who has had
previous experience of DV themselves, or someone who has children of their own, that they
could relate to more meaningfully. One respondent stated:
29 January 2011 Page 31
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
‘Girls perhaps need someone their own age to speak to, in the same boat, rather than
someone who’s in their forties, never been married, never had kids, I know they’re
qualified but, you know, a self-help support group would be beneficial’.
Follow-up
Many respondents stated they would like follow-up support for the emotional and
psychological effects the violence had brought. At the moment, long-term support is limited
and respondents stated that ongoing and frequent offers of assistance would be very
beneficial in preventing repeat episodes. It would also provide a close contact for them to
confide in and who can provide help and support if the violence did continue.
‘I’ve never spoken about it. I think I just blanked it out. It happened months ago but I
could use some support right now’.
Reciprocal communication
It was also considered by our respondents that communication flows should be two-way. In
this respect, victims of DV are expected and encouraged to report incidences to the police,
yet when they do, very often information coming back to them from the police is sparse.
Respondents remarked:
‘To report something and then have to chase it and chase it and chase it, then for it to
end up in the papers. I’m not going to report anything again’.
‘I do think that as soon as the assault takes place the police should offer the DV
service immediately without me having to ring up and beg them. The police lack help
in that department’.
‘I really think that had I been given numbers by the police on the day it happened, I’d
have been far better prepared to sort things out’.
4.2.7 Summary of users’ views
DV victims themselves view the WSDVC as supportive and empowering in that they are
provided with a great deal of information and one-to-one support in order for them to
feel secure in progressing a prosecution. The support they have received is viewed as vital
in helping them to accommodate to new situations. Having said that, there is still somewhat
of a concern over the extent to which they are provided with timely and prompt
information at the point of incident. To summarise the major concerns of all of our
respondents, it is worth quoting at length the words of one respondent who had an
exceptionally bad experience of initial lack of information but which was provided once
the CJS began its process. This person’s words will no doubt echo the opinions of many
‘first-time’ victims of DV:
‘You’re in a state of turmoil and everything’s new and I never ever thought this would
happen to me. How am I going to deal with work, the anger and the shame, the guilt
and the horror and you’re just full of so many emotions. When you haven’t been
through this before, you don’t know where to go. During those first four weeks I
couldn’t make sense of the process because I didn’t know what was going to happen. I
felt very much alone. There was no advice for me at that point. When it went into the
formal court process, that’s when the systems kicked in and everybody was there for
me. I had Victim Support, I had Witness Support and they were all really excellent.
It’s just those first few weeks that are the worst time’.
29 January 2011 Page 32
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
5. Synopsis of Findings
5.1 Analysis of all the available statistical data reveals inconsistencies within monitoring,
recording and information sharing between agencies. This is perhaps indicative of higher
tier strategic management of different agencies’ systems that are perhaps unchangeable
on an immediate basis. However, in general, statistical findings can be viewed as
illustrating positive progression for the WSDVC in terms of its stated aims and achievement
towards projected targets: expeditious processing of cases, decreased re-victimisation,
slightly more offenders brought to justice and reduced initial not guilty pleas. However, the
number of DV incidents which are translated into charges remains very low. It is yet to be
seen whether PCA will have a lasting effect on the number of offenders brought to justice.
.
5.2 Many respondents viewed the working of the WSDVC from a very positive point of view,
in that all agencies appear to be working very effectively together in order to support the
requirements of DV victims. However, there still appears to be little accurate knowledge or
understanding of the role of other agencies and the extent to which other agencies are on
board with the ethos of the court, e.g., Social Services, Protect, and the Probation Service.
Training is once more seen as a major issue, particularly in respect to Magistrates and
prosecutors, and is a feature of the working of the WSDVC that needs to be further and
continually addressed.
5.3 DV victims themselves view the WSDVC as supportive and empowering in that they are
provided with a great deal of information and one-to-one support in order for them to
feel secure in progressing a prosecution. The support they have received is viewed as vital
in helping them to accommodate to new situations. Having said that, there is still somewhat
of a concern over the extent to which they are provided with timely and prompt
information at the point of incident.
6. Recommendations
6.1 Although this evaluation has highlighted many areas in which the WSDVC has confidently
progressed from its initial beginnings in 2002, data have indicated the way in which
further improvements may in fact be recommended. These may best be summarised as
follows:
R1 Some voluntary and community support groups, particularly geared to helping support
victims of DV (e.g., AWAAZ), require additional resources to retain a specialist DV worker
to provide immediate and ongoing high-quality and dedicated help, support and
advocacy to Asian DV survivors. Current practice on the ground merely comprises referring
on to other agencies for support when this might be better placed in the same community
group/setting appropriate to the victim’s requirements.
R2 A persistent problem throughout research evaluations on DV has been the collection of
reliable statistical data. Multi-agency working and partnerships are vital to the success of
any social policy endeavour, and it is recommended that partners work to common
definitions, with shared and common recording strategies (such as electronic databases),
agreed and applied consistently. Given that the CPS and police operate with different
electronic databases/systems which are restricted to one another, and that the magistrates
court operate on three systems, it is recommended that serious thought be given to
strategically linking databases or to constructing a more elaborate system, better
designed for contemporary need. It is highly recommended that a steering group
29 January 2011 Page 33
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
comprising every statutory and voluntary agency involved in DV be set up in order to
address this issue as an urgent priority.
R3 The qualitative data have shown that there is a pressing need for quality and accurate
information from the outset of any DV incident, particularly including information and
advice on the CJS as well as acute issues such as housing matters. Verbally articulated
information cannot be absorbed in times of acute crises and a complete, comprehensive
written guide in relation to legal matters, counselling services and other support agencies,
including what is and what is not available (particularly for working victims or victims who
own their own homes) is therefore needed and is in fact paramount to providing an
effective support mechanism from the outset of any DV-related incident. Such a document
could be drawn up and provided by attending officers for victims to read as the crisis
abates.
R4 There is a need for police accompaniment back to the marital/family home in order to
collect personal belongings. This service is available for victims of DV but is not standard
practice in relation to perpetrators. This would give survivors space in which to begin to
rebuild their lives, as well as providing support for the perpetrator in order to offset any
further incidents.
R5 Immigration and child abduction issues were raised as an issue in that victims are not
provided with adequate legal information on residency issues when the partner is an
immigrant and there are genuine fears of child abduction. Key informants appeared to
lack understanding of these issues, mainly due the fact that they seldom come across such a
case. However, this will no doubt be an increasing problem in the foreseeable future and it
is recommended that training incorporate this as a matter of great importance.
R6 There are instances in which the 0845 police telephone number is inaccessible and victims
who require immediate communication find the service ineffective. DV victims have
proposed that a direct line to DV police officers is provided in order to access immediate
help and support instead of the 0845 number currently used. It became apparent that
there is no funding available for magistrates’ specialist training courses. Given the
specialist nature of the WSDVC, it would seem essential for such training to be offered
and taken up.
7. Bibliography
Cook D. (2003). Evaluation of Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court. Wolverhampton:
Regional Research Institute.
29 January 2011 Page 34
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
Annex 1 Membership of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence
Court Steering Group
Andrea Whittingham - CPS Witness Care Unit
Deborah Ramsdale - Social Services
Dee Cook - Policy Research Institute
Diane Gibbins - Magistrates Court
Eileen Edbury - Magistrate
Gaynor Hollis - Witness Support Service
Gerald Thorne - Thornes Solicitors
Gillian Curl - CPS
Jas Pejatta - Probation Service
Jasvinder Devgon - The Haven
Maggie McAndrew - WCSP
Manjit Dehal - AWAAZ
Mike Treble - West Midlands Police
Roger Fanner - Witness Support Service
Ruth Clark - Witness Support Service
Sally Stephens - Child and Family Court (CAFCASS)
Sandra Kelly - Victim Support
Sue Lindup - WDVF
29 January 2011 Page 35
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
Annex 2 Key Informant Interview Schedule
We are conducting an Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court. As
part of the evaluation we are focusing upon specific priorities defined within the Strategy and
surveying the views of stakeholders as to a range of issues.
You have been identified as someone whose views would be of value in this work. Purpose of
interview – to find out what people think about the way that the new Specialist DV Court in
Wolverhampton has operated over the past year (good points/strengths and weaknesses/areas
for improvement). There is an assumption in the way we phrase the questions for this interview that
victims are predominantly female.
The interview can be done over the phone, takes less than twenty minutes, and consists of some
basic questions as to your work and your perceptions as to the effectiveness of the specialist
Domestic Violence Court.
Everything you tell us can be said in complete confidence, your views will not be passed onto any
third party and any comments you make will be completely anonymised in the final report and
under no circumstances could be attributed to you.
If this is not a convenient time, I’d be happy to arrange an alternative time to ring you and
conduct the interview.
Taping of Interview - Consent given [ ] No consent given [ ]
Part 1 - Background/Context
1. Name of Contact:
(Assure interviewee about confidentiality of views expressed)
2. Organisation:
3. Scope/Remit: what is the role of your organisation in relation to domestic violence (ask for
copies of any terms of reference, working definitions of DV), and what is your role within that
organisation?
29 January 2011 Page 36
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
4. When/at what stage do you come into contact with victims (and their children)?
Part 2 – The Specialist DV Court
5. Has the Wolverhampton SDVC facilitated effective joint working?
Yes [ ] No [ ] Not sure [ ]
Why do you say that?:
6. In your experience (and/or the experience of the victims you work with), how would you
describe the experience of victims at the Specialist DV Court at Wolverhampton?
Very Good Not so Not sure
Good good
Physical accommodation at court [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Speed (or not) of the process [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Knowing what to expect [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Supportive [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Information – Initially and on progress of case [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Comments:
29 January 2011 Page 37
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
7. In your experience, do you think victims are more or less likely to retract their statements
before going to court than before the advent of the SDVC?
More [ ] Less likely [ ] About the same [ ]
(Prompt: suggested reasons that were given for retractions last year are noted below – has the
DVC changed anything – if so in what ways?)
IMPROVED ABOUT NOT COMMENTS
SITUATION SAME SURE
[ ] [ ] [ ]
Fear of the perpetrator
[ ] [ ] [ ]
Fear of repercussions from his family,
her own family and the community
[ ] [ ] [ ]
Fear of damaging family status and
honour
[ ] [ ] [ ]
Fear of losing children
[ ] [ ] [ ]
Fear of and lack of information about
criminal and civil processes
Lack of information about the progress [ ] [ ] [ ]
of their case
[ ] [ ] [ ]
Delays in bringing cases to trial
[ ] [ ] [ ]
Changes to bail conditions
[ ] [ ] [ ]
Vulnerability in court
[ ] [ ] [ ]
Immigration status
8. Since August 2004, the CPS are asked to advise the police on charges before they actually
charge an alleged offender. The rationale behind pre-charge advice is that if we ensure that
the case is completely robust at the point of charging the offender, then it is more likely that it
will go ahead. In your opinion:
a) Has the advent of pre-charge advice had an impact on the number of cases of domestic
violence?
More [ ] Less [ ] Unsure [ ]
b) Has it resulted in more cases proceeding through the CJS?
More [ ] Less [ ] Unsure [ ]
29 January 2011 Page 38
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
9. How many cases have continued in spite of the victim having retracted their statement?
10. What do you feel the specialist DV court has and has not achieved?
Aims of the Wolverhampton SDVC (agreed by the Steering Group in July 2002) reflect the need
for the court to achieve concrete, positive outcomes for victims and survivors of domestic violence.
The stated aims are to:
Expectation Has it been achieved? (reasons if poss.)
Increase the % of DV complaints which
are translatable into charges
Reduce the number of ‘not guilty’ pleas
by alleged perpetrators
Reduce the % of retracted statements
made by victims
Reduce the attrition rate in cases of DV,
as they proceed through the criminal
justice process
Over the longer term, reduce the
incidence of repeat victimisation
11. How do you feel about the operation of the SDVC, in practice?
Area/Aspect of Very Good Average Poor Very poor Comments, if any
Operation good
Effective [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Partnership
working - a
shared sense of
purpose
Police commitment [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Crown Prosecution [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Service
commitment
Court staff [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
commitment
29 January 2011 Page 39
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
Court [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
arrangements –
physical and
operational
Resources [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Availability of [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
support services
Joint Training [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Development of [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
specialist
advocacy and
support services
for victims through
the CJS
Other – details. [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Part 3. – Future development
12. Do you have any suggestions for areas of further development/change in the policy or the
working practices of the SDVC?
Policy Changes/ Developments
Working Practices Changes/Developments
13. Are there any particular agencies that have not been effective and/or should have played a
role and have not?
29 January 2011 Page 40
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
Yes [ ] No [ ] Not sure [ ]
Please specify:
14. Are any improvements needed in an operational sense, e.g., how implemented and by whom etc.?
Yes [ ] No [ ] Not sure [ ]
Please specify:
15. Are any improvements needed in a strategic sense?
Yes [ ] No [ ] Not sure [ ]
Please specify:
16. Is there anything we have not covered that you would like to add?
29 January 2011 Page 41
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
Annex 3 Key Informants
A total of 13 key informants were interviewed by telephone for the purpose of obtaining their
experiences and perceptions of the WSDVC over the specified timeframe. Of these, the following
DV and support services and CJ-related agencies participated:
CPS Witness Care Unit
CPS
Primary Care Trust
Victim Support
WDVF
Wolverhampton Primary Care Trust
Wolverhampton County Council
Protect
Wolverhampton Magistrates Court
WMP Child Protection Unit
29 January 2011 Page 42
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
Annex 4 DV Victim/Survivor Interview Schedule
We are conducting an Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court. As
part of the evaluation we are focusing upon the experiences of victims who have attended the
new Wolverhampton SDVC as to a range of issues. Your views would be of great value in this
work. The purpose of the interview is to find out what people think about the way that the new
Specialist DV Court has operated over the past year (good points/strengths and
weaknesses/areas for improvement).
The interview can be done over the phone, takes less than twenty minutes, and consists of some
basic questions as to your experiences and your perceptions as to the effectiveness of the
specialist Domestic Violence Court. We will not ask any questions as to the nature of the
offence, just the proceedings which followed it. Our overall aim is to try to find out about
victims’ experiences of going through DV proceedings, and to evaluate the support and
information offered and received at three broad stages of the process - before, during and after
the court hearing.
Everything you tell us can be said in complete confidence, your views will not be passed onto any
third party and any comments you make will be completely anonymised in the final report and
under no circumstances could be attributed to you.
If this is not a convenient time, I’d be happy to arrange an alternative time to ring you and
conduct the interview.
Taping of Interview - Consent given [ ] No consent given [ ]
Stage 1. From reporting the incident to being notified to attend court.
1. Firstly, can you tell us about your experience from when you reported the DV incident, up to the
time you were notified of a date to attend the Specialist DV Court (SDVC)?
Interviewer Prompts: What kind of support and information were you offered/ did you
receive (e.g. legal advice/information, counselling, personal support, accompaniment, updates
on case)? Sensitivity of police officers dealing with your case? Information on what to expect
from the criminal justice process? Any issues or problems around language/culture? Were you
satisfied with any support received?
2. Can you think of any support, information or advice that you needed at that initial stage, but
did not receive?
Interviewer Prompts: Legal information, personal support, counselling, accompaniment,
information about the court process and what I could expect, benefits, updates on progress
of the case delays, sensitive staff, better co-ordination of different agencies, referral on to
another agency, translation?
29 January 2011 Page 43
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
3. Can you think of any changes you would like to see, to make the experience from reporting an
incident and getting to the SDVC better for victims in the future?
Stage 2. From when you received the notification to attend the SDVC up to and including the
day of the court hearing.
4. When were you notified that you needed to attend court as a witness?
Interviewer Prompts: How much notice were you given, and what support was available in the
interim, before appearance?
5. Can you tell us about your experience on the day you attended the Specialist Domestic
Violence Court (SDVC)? What day of the week was the hearing?
Interviewer Prompts: What kind of support and information were you offered/ did you receive
(e.g. legal advice/information, counselling, personal support, accompaniment, updates on case
etc… )? Sensitivity of staff such as Criminal Justice Support Service (Jenni Moore), Police DV
Officer, court, CPS, lawyers, Witness Service, who were) dealing with your case? Information on
what to expect from the criminal justice process? Any issues or problems around language/culture?
Were you satisfied with any support received?
29 January 2011 Page 44
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
6. Can you think of any support, information or advice that you needed when you went to court,
but did not receive?
Interviewer Prompts: legal information, personal support, accompaniment, referral on for further
support, information on court proceedings and what to expect?
7. Can you think of any changes to the SDVC arrangements on the day of hearing which could
make the court experience better for victims in the future?
Stage 3. After the end of the SDVC proceedings
8. Can you tell us about your experiences after the SDVC hearing was over?
Interviewer Prompts: What kind of support and information were you offered/ did you receive
(e.g. counselling, personal support, welfare/benefit advice, updates on bail and other conditions
etc… )? Information and updates on case outcome – e.g. sentencing decisions/bail conditions? Any
issues or problems around language/culture? Were you satisfied with any support you did
receive?
9. Can you think of any support, information or advice that you needed when the SDVC case was
finished, but you did not receive?
29 January 2011 Page 45
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
Interviewer Prompts: counselling, personal support, welfare/benefit/housing advice, updates on
bail and other conditions etc referral to other relevant agencies?
10. Can you think of any changes you would like to see to improve the experience of victims after
they have gone through domestic violence proceedings at the SDVC?
4. Open Feedback Section:
11. Is there anything else you would like to add, or anything about the criminal justice process for
domestic violence victims that we have not covered?
29 January 2011 Page 46
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
Annex 5 WMP Ethnicity Categories and Codes
Major Categories Sub-groupings Home Office Code
White W
White British W1
Irish W2
Any Other White Background W9
Mixed M
White and Black Caribbean M1
Mixed White and Black African M2
White and Asian M3
Any Other Mixed Background M9
Asian or Asian British A
Indian A1
Asian or Asian British Pakistani A2
Bangladeshi A3
Any Other Asian Background A9
Black or Black British B
Black or Black British Caribbean B1
African B2
Any Other Black Background B9
Not Stated NS
29 January 2011 Page 47
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
Annex 6 Statistical data
Crown Prosecution Service Data
day of w ee k of he aring (SDV Court?)
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid monday 12 4.3 4.3 4.3
tues day 180 64.3 64.3 68.6
w ednesday 27 9.6 9.6 78.2
thurs day 14 5.0 5.0 83.2
f riday 14 5.0 5.0 88.2
unknow n 33 11.8 11.8 100.0
Total 280 100.0 100.0
defe ndant's ge nde r
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid male 240 85.7 85.7 85.7
f emale 9 3.2 3.2 88.9
unknow n 31 11.1 11.1 100.0
Total 280 100.0 100.0
defe ndant's age
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 16-19 4 1.4 1.4 1.4
20-24 30 10.7 10.7 12.1
25-29 30 10.7 10.7 22.9
30-39 101 36.1 36.1 58.9
40-59 77 27.5 27.5 86.4
60-69 5 1.8 1.8 88.2
no DOB provided 33 11.8 11.8 100.0
Total 280 100.0 100.0
29 January 2011 Page 48
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
defe ndant's ethnicity
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid W1 71 25.4 25.4 25.4
W2 1 .4 .4 25.7
M1 3 1.1 1.1 26.8
A1 11 3.9 3.9 30.7
A9 1 .4 .4 31.1
B1 7 2.5 2.5 33.6
B9 2 .7 .7 34.3
NS 184 65.7 65.7 100.0
Total 280 100.0 100.0
is defe ndant a repe at offe nde r?
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid yes 43 15.4 15.4 15.4
no 31 11.1 11.1 26.4
unsure 206 73.6 73.6 100.0
Total 280 100.0 100.0
victim 's ge nde r
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid male 12 4.3 4.3 4.3
f emale 213 76.1 76.1 80.4
unknow n 55 19.6 19.6 100.0
Total 280 100.0 100.0
victim 's age
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid 16-19 7 2.5 2.5 2.5
20-24 33 11.8 11.8 14.3
25-29 26 9.3 9.3 23.6
30-39 53 18.9 18.9 42.5
40-59 40 14.3 14.3 56.8
60-69 1 .4 .4 57.1
70+ 1 .4 .4 57.5
no DOB provided 119 42.5 42.5 100.0
Total 280 100.0 100.0
29 January 2011 Page 49
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
victim 's ethnicity
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid W1 78 27.9 27.9 27.9
W2 1 .4 .4 28.2
A1 12 4.3 4.3 32.5
B1 2 .7 .7 33.2
B2 1 .4 .4 33.6
NS 186 66.4 66.4 100.0
Total 280 100.0 100.0
is victim a r epeat victim ?
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid yes 42 15.0 15.0 15.0
no 30 10.7 10.7 25.7
unsure 208 74.3 74.3 100.0
Total 280 100.0 100.0
re lationship of victim to de fendant?
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid partner 41 14.6 14.6 14.6
ex -partner 34 12.1 12.1 26.8
w if e 35 12.5 12.5 39.3
ex -w if e 1 .4 .4 39.6
sister 1 .4 .4 40.0
daughter 2 .7 .7 40.7
mother 3 1.1 1.1 41.8
unknow n 155 55.4 55.4 97.1
husband 8 2.9 2.9 100.0
Total 280 100.0 100.0
w as defe ndant arre ste d?
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid yes 97 34.6 34.6 34.6
unsure 183 65.4 65.4 100.0
Total 280 100.0 100.0
29 January 2011 Page 50
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
w as pre-charge advice r eque s ted by police ?
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid yes 11 3.9 3.9 3.9
no 73 26.1 26.1 30.0
unsure 196 70.0 70.0 100.0
Total 280 100.0 100.0
1s t original charge
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid s39 common ass ault 124 44.3 44.3 44.3
s47 as sault/abh 74 26.4 26.4 70.7
s20 w ounding/gbh 3 1.1 1.1 71.8
s2 harras sment 3 1.1 1.1 72.9
threats to kill 1 .4 .4 73.2
damage 18 6.4 6.4 79.6
thef t 3 1.1 1.1 80.7
other 24 8.6 8.6 89.3
unknow n 30 10.7 10.7 100.0
Total 280 100.0 100.0
2nd original charge
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid s39 common as sault 37 13.2 41.6 41.6
s47 as sault/abh 9 3.2 10.1 51.7
s20 w ounding/gbh 2 .7 2.2 53.9
s2 harras sment 1 .4 1.1 55.1
damage 14 5.0 15.7 70.8
thef t 2 .7 2.2 73.0
other 24 8.6 27.0 100.0
Total 89 31.8 100.0
Mis sing System 191 68.2
Total 280 100.0
29 January 2011 Page 51
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
3r d or iginal char ge
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid s39 common as sault 15 5.4 45.5 45.5
s47 as sault/abh 2 .7 6.1 51.5
s2 harras sment 1 .4 3.0 54.5
threats to kill 2 .7 6.1 60.6
damage 3 1.1 9.1 69.7
other 10 3.6 30.3 100.0
Total 33 11.8 100.0
Mis sing System 247 88.2
Total 280 100.0
how m uch dam age (in £)?
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 279 99.6 99.6 99.6
<5000 1 .4 .4 100.0
Total 280 100.0 100.0
29 January 2011 Page 52
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
othe r original charges
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid 243 86.8 86.8 86.8
A f f ray 4 1.4 1.4 88.2
A ss aulting a constable 3 1.1 1.1 89.3
A ss aulting a constable x 2
1 .4 .4 89.6
breach of peace 1 .4 .4 90.0
Breac h of the peace.
1 .4 .4 90.4
A f f ray.
Cruelty to a c hild under 16 1 .4 .4 90.7
Driving w hile intoxicated 2 .7 .7 91.4
Failing to s urrender to
1 .4 .4 91.8
custody
handling stolen goods 1 .4 .4 92.1
Having article w ith intent
1 .4 .4 92.5
to damage property
intimidating w itness es 1 .4 .4 92.9
Intimidating w itness es 5 1.8 1.8 94.6
Obs tructing a constable 1 .4 .4 95.0
Of f enc es agains t the
1 .4 .4 95.4
person
Putting person in f ear of
1 .4 .4 95.7
violenc e
threatening to damage
1 .4 .4 96.1
property
Using threatening
1 .4 .4 96.4
behaviour
Using threatening
behaviour to prov oke 3 1.1 1.1 97.5
violenc e
Using threatening
behaviour to prov oke 3 1.1 1.1 98.6
violenc e.
Using vehicle w ithout
1 .4 .4 98.9
insuranc e
Using violenc e to enter
1 .4 .4 99.3
property
Using violenc e to sec ure
1 .4 .4 99.6
entry
Weapon in public 1 .4 .4 100.0
Total 280 100.0 100.0
29 January 2011 Page 53
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
1s t outcom e charge
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid s39 common as sault 3 1.1 50.0 50.0
s47 as sault/abh 2 .7 33.3 83.3
s2 harras sment 1 .4 16.7 100.0
Total 6 2.1 100.0
Mis sing System 274 97.9
Total 280 100.0
2nd outcom e charge
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid s39 common as sault 1 .4 33.3 33.3
s2 harras sment 1 .4 33.3 66.7
damage 1 .4 33.3 100.0
Total 3 1.1 100.0
Mis sing System 277 98.9
Total 280 100.0
3r d outcom e charge
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid s39 common as sault 1 .4 50.0 50.0
threats to kill 1 .4 50.0 100.0
Total 2 .7 100.0
Mis sing System 278 99.3
Total 280 100.0
initial plea
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid guilty (s ingle of f ence) 42 15.0 15.0 15.0
guilty (to s ome) 12 4.3 4.3 19.3
guilty (to all) 20 7.1 7.1 26.4
not guilty (single of f ence) 72 25.7 25.7 52.1
not guilty (to s ome) 3 1.1 1.1 53.2
not guilty (to all) 40 14.3 14.3 67.5
unknow n 91 32.5 32.5 100.0
Total 280 100.0 100.0
29 January 2011 Page 54
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
final ple a (if changed)
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid guilty (s ingle of f enc e) 14 5.0 42.4 42.4
guilty (to some) 3 1.1 9.1 51.5
guilty (to all) 13 4.6 39.4 90.9
not guilty (s ingle of f ence) 2 .7 6.1 97.0
unknow n 1 .4 3.0 100.0
Total 33 11.8 100.0
Mis sing System 247 88.2
Total 280 100.0
approxim ate le ngth of tim e to pros e cution/finalis ation of cas e
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1-2 months 81 28.9 28.9 28.9
2-3 months 62 22.1 22.1 51.1
3-4 months 48 17.1 17.1 68.2
4-5 months 11 3.9 3.9 72.1
5-6 months 15 5.4 5.4 77.5
ov er 6 months 13 4.6 4.6 82.1
unknow n 50 17.9 17.9 100.0
Total 280 100.0 100.0
defe ndant pre s ent at court?
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid yes 120 42.9 42.9 42.9
no 23 8.2 8.2 51.1
unsure 137 48.9 48.9 100.0
Total 280 100.0 100.0
victim pre se nt at court?
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid yes 40 14.3 14.3 14.3
no 85 30.4 30.4 44.6
unsure 155 55.4 55.4 100.0
Total 280 100.0 100.0
29 January 2011 Page 55
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
did victim re tract?
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid yes 91 32.5 32.7 32.7
no 114 40.7 41.0 73.7
unsure 73 26.1 26.3 100.0
Total 278 99.3 100.0
Mis sing System 2 .7
Total 280 100.0
OUTCOME1
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid ac quitted af ter trial 9 3.2 3.2 3.2
bindover 18 6.4 6.4 9.6
no c as e to ans w er 2 .7 .7 10.4
civil order 1 .4 .4 10.7
cpo 5 1.8 1.8 12.5
cro 5 1.8 1.8 14.3
compensation order 25 8.9 8.9 23.2
conditional dis charge 11 3.9 3.9 27.1
custodial sentenc e 11 3.9 3.9 31.1
disc ontinued/dismis sed 74 26.4 26.4 57.5
f ine 7 2.5 2.5 60.0
f ound not guilty 7 2.5 2.5 62.5
neo 54 19.3 19.3 81.8
unknow n outcome 51 18.2 18.2 100.0
Total 280 100.0 100.0
re ferr ed to aw aaz
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid yes 1 .4 100.0 100.0
Mis sing System 279 99.6
Total 280 100.0
re ferr ed to the Have n outre ach se rvices
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid yes 4 1.4 100.0 100.0
Mis sing System 276 98.6
Total 280 100.0
29 January 2011 Page 56
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
re ferr ed to victim s upport
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid yes 12 4.3 100.0 100.0
Mis sing System 268 95.7
Total 280 100.0
re ferr ed to w itne ss care unit (CPS)
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid yes 167 59.6 100.0 100.0
Mis sing System 113 40.4
Total 280 100.0
re ferr ed to w itne ss se rvice (Magistr ates cour t)
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid yes 58 20.7 100.0 100.0
Mis sing System 222 79.3
Total 280 100.0
any black and m inority e thnic is sue s for victim ?
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid yes 10 3.6 3.6 3.6
no 84 30.0 30.0 33.6
unsure 186 66.4 66.4 100.0
Total 280 100.0 100.0
29 January 2011 Page 57
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
s pe cific be m e is s ue s
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 270 96.4 96.4 96.4
interpreter required
(Punjabi s peaking). Jenni
1 .4 .4 96.8
Mare had co-w orker w ith
language.
Interpreter required to
1 .4 .4 97.1
make s tatement
Only speaks Punjabi 2 .7 .7 97.9
Punjabi - requires
1 .4 .4 98.2
interpreter
Punjabi requires
1 .4 .4 98.6
interpreter.
Speaks Punjabi 1 .4 .4 98.9
Translation servic es 1 .4 .4 99.3
Urdu speaking only 1 .4 .4 99.6
Vic tim dys lex ic and
required as sistanc e of
1 .4 .4 100.0
Criminal Justic e Support
Worker
Total 280 100.0 100.0
29 January 2011 Page 58
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
West Midlands Police Data
TOTAL DV INCIDENTS FROM APRIL 2004 TO MARCH 2005
OCU Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Total
G1 166 123 136 62 206 112 131 169 131 98 94 120 1548
G2 162 123 128 200 33 215 96 141 78 191 129 163 1659
Total 328 246 264 262 239 327 227 310 209 289 223 283 3207
REPEAT VICTIMS OF DV FROM APRIL 2004 TO MARCH 2005
OCU Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Total
G1 54 30 37 15 58 31 34 45 37 26 25 30 422
G2 54 40 40 67 18 71 33 45 30 71 53 43 565
Total 108 70 77 82 76 102 67 90 67 97 78 73 987
REPEAT RATES OF DV FROM APRIL 2004 TO MARCH 2005
OCU Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Average
G1 32% 24% 27% 24% 28% 28% 26% 27% 28% 26% 27% 25% 27%
G2 33% 32% 31% 33% 54% 33% 34% 32% 38% 37% 41% 26% 34%
Average 32% 26% 29% 28% 41% 30% 30% 29% 33% 31% 34% 25% 31%
DV VICTIMS BY ETHNICITY FROM APRIL 2004 TO MARCH 2005
OCU G1 G2 Total
African Caribbean 149 103 252
Arab 2 0 2
Asian 359 113 472
Bangladeshi 0 0 0
Chinese 0 0 0
Dark European 10 2 12
Not Known 199 295 494
Oriental 5 1 6
Other 9 23 32
White-skinned European 822 1107 1929
Blank 3 6 9
29 January 2011 Page 59
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
Total 1558 1650 3208
29 January 2011 Page 60
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
The Haven data
TOTAL NUMBER OF REFERRALS AND ADMISSIONS FROM APRIL 2004 TO MARCH 2005
Referrals Admissions
Women Children Total Women Children Total
1264 1066 2330 236 244 480
54% 46% 100% 49% 51% 100%
19% of 23% of 21% of all
Total women children referrals
referred referred
29 January 2011 Page 61
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
Criminal Justice Support Services Co-ordinator Data
Refe rre d to CJSSC
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 105 9.3 82.7 82.7
1 22 2.0 17.3 100.0
Total 127 11.3 100.0
Mis sing System 1000 88.7
Total 1127 100.0
V ictim Ethnicity
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid 1000 88.7 88.7 88.7
0 14 1.2 1.2 90.0
A1 9 .8 .8 90.8
A2 1 .1 .1 90.9
B1 9 .8 .8 91.7
B2 2 .2 .2 91.8
B9 1 .1 .1 91.9
M1 3 .3 .3 92.2
W1 87 7.7 7.7 99.9
W2 1 .1 .1 100.0
Total 1127 100.0 100.0
Victim 2Ethnicity
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1000 88.7 88.7 88.7
0 123 10.9 10.9 99.6
W1 4 .4 .4 100.0
Total 1127 100.0 100.0
Vicitm Ge nder
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1001 88.8 88.8 88.8
Female 120 10.6 10.6 99.5
Male 6 .5 .5 100.0
Total 1127 100.0 100.0
29 January 2011 Page 62
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
Victim 2Ge nde r
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1120 99.4 99.4 99.4
Female 5 .4 .4 99.8
Male 2 .2 .2 100.0
Total 1127 100.0 100.0
Victim Dis ability
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1000 88.7 88.7 88.7
No 5 .4 .4 89.2
Not Specif ied
114 10.1 10.1 99.3
on Polic e File
Yes 6 .5 .5 99.8
Yes * 2 .2 .2 100.0
Total 1127 100.0 100.0
V ictim 2Disability
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid 1017 90.2 90.2 90.2
N/A 103 9.1 9.1 99.4
Not s pecif ied
7 .6 .6 100.0
on polic e f ile
Total 1127 100.0 100.0
29 January 2011 Page 63
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
V ictim Relations hip2Def
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid 1002 88.9 88.9 88.9
(Ex ?) Partner 1 .1 .1 89.0
A unt 1 .1 .1 89.1
Daughter's ex-Partner 1 .1 .1 89.2
Daughter 3 .3 .3 89.4
Ex -Husband 1 .1 .1 89.5
Ex -Partner 23 2.0 2.0 91.6
Ex -Partnerq 1 .1 .1 91.7
Ex -Wif e 9 .8 .8 92.5
Father 1 .1 .1 92.5
Friend of IP(2) 1 .1 .1 92.6
Grandmother 1 .1 .1 92.7
Mother-in-Law 1 .1 .1 92.8
Mother 1 .1 .1 92.9
Not know n 1 .1 .1 93.0
Not on f ile 1 .1 .1 93.1
Paqrtner 1 .1 .1 93.2
Partner 39 3.5 3.5 96.6
Partner of Def endant's
1 .1 .1 96.7
ex -Partner
Sister 1 .1 .1 96.8
Step-Mother 1 .1 .1 96.9
Step-sister 1 .1 .1 97.0
Stepson 1 .1 .1 97.1
Wif e 33 2.9 2.9 100.0
Total 1127 100.0 100.0
V ictim 2Re lations hp2De f
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid 1120 99.4 99.4 99.4
Ex -Mother-in-Law 1 .1 .1 99.5
Friend of IP (1) 1 .1 .1 99.6
IP(2) Ex-Partner 1 .1 .1 99.6
Partner 1 .1 .1 99.7
Partner of IP 1 .1 .1 99.8
Sisters x 2 (2nd
1 .1 .1 99.9
DOB 19/02/1986)
Stepson 1 .1 .1 100.0
Total 1127 100.0 100.0
29 January 2011 Page 64
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
LanguageVs tate m e nt
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1003 89.0 89.0 89.0
English 117 10.4 10.4 99.4
English (f irst
1 .1 .1 99.5
language Shona)
None taken 2 .2 .2 99.6
Not on f ile 1 .1 .1 99.7
Punjabi 3 .3 .3 100.0
Total 1127 100.0 100.0
Language V2Statem ent
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1120 99.4 99.4 99.4
English 6 .5 .5 99.9
Englsh 1 .1 .1 100.0
Total 1127 100.0 100.0
29 January 2011 Page 65
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
Chang e 2Ch arg e
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid 1013 89.9 89.9 89.9
A BH on IP (1) (reduced to
1 .1 .1 90.0
S39)
A BH on IP to Common
1 .1 .1 90.1
A ss ault
A BH replac ed w ith
Common A ss ault
Criminal Damage 1 .1 .1 90.2
replaced w ith us ing
violenc e to sec ure entry
A BH replac ed w ith S39 2 .2 .2 90.3
A BH replac ed w ith S39
4 .4 .4 90.7
A ss ault
A BH replac ed w ith S39
Breac h of Peace 1 .1 .1 90.8
w ithdraw n
A BH replac ed w ith S39
Witnes s interview 1 .1 .1 90.9
dismissed on day of Trial
A BH to Common As sault 3 .3 .3 91.1
A BH to S39 As sault 2 .2 .2 91.3
A BH to S39 As sault
Criminal Damage to 1 .1 .1 91.4
Disc ontinued
A f f ray - w ithdraw n bef ore
Trial Criminal Damage 1 .1 .1 91.5
dropped on day of Trial
A f f ray replaced w ith
threats to kill A t Trial
1 .1 .1 91.6
replaced w ith S2
Harras sment
A ss ault Charge only
1 .1 .1 91.7
disc ontinued
Child Cruelty x 2 added
1 .1 .1 91.7
and then dropped again
Common A ss ault - 1 .1 .1 91.8
Common A ss ault 1 .1 .1 91.9
Common A ss ault (af ter
intial reduction to 1 .1 .1 92.0
w ounding S20)
Common A ss ault on IP
1 .1 .1 92.1
(2)
Common A ss ault on IP(2)
1 .1 .1 92.2
w ithdraw n
Criminal Damage both
1 .1 .1 92.3
W/D
Ev erthing w ithdraw n
ex cept A BH on this IP 1 .1 .1 92.4
(one charge)
Indecent A ss ault dropped
1 .1 .1 92.5
on day of Trial
None 75 6.7 6.7 99.1
Not Guilty to A ss ault
1 .1 .1 99.2
Guilty to Drug Charge
Not to DV Charge 1 .1 .1 99.3
Obs truction PC Common
A ss ault (reduc ed f rom 1 .1 .1 99.4
A BH)
Replac ed w ith ABH 1 .1 .1 99.5
S39 A ss ault 3 .3 .3 99.7
S39 A ss ault on PC 1 .1 .1 99.8
Threats to kill - W/D 1 .1 .1 99.9
Threats to kill to S4 POA 1 .1 .1 100.0
Total 1127 100.0 100.0
29 January 2011 Page 66
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
InitialPle aD1
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1001 88.8 88.8 88.8
Guilty 11 1.0 1.0 89.8
Guilty to S39 1 .1 .1 89.9
Guilty x 2 2 .2 .2 90.1
Guilty x 2 NG to
1 .1 .1 90.2
G2/1374/04 Dismis sed
Guilty x 3 1 .1 .1 90.2
No plea entered 21 1.9 1.9 92.1
Not guilty 67 5.9 5.9 98.0
Not guilty Ass ault Guilty
1 .1 .1 98.1
to others
Not guilty to S39 : Guilty
1 .1 .1 98.2
to S4POA
Not guilty to some
3 .3 .3 98.5
charges
Not guilty x 2 11 1.0 1.0 99.5
Not Guilty x 2 1 .1 .1 99.6
Not guilty x 3 2 .2 .2 99.7
Not guilty x 4 2 .2 .2 99.9
Not guiltyx 3 + Breach
1 .1 .1 100.0
denied
Total 1127 100.0 100.0
InitialPle aD2
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1122 99.6 99.6 99.6
Guilty 1 .1 .1 99.6
No plea entered 1 .1 .1 99.7
Not Guilty 2 .2 .2 99.9
Not Guilty x 2 1 .1 .1 100.0
Total 1127 100.0 100.0
29 January 2011 Page 67
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
Change Ple a
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1005 89.2 89.2 89.2
At PTR 1 .1 .1 89.3
Guilty to Assault only 1 .1 .1 89.4
Guilty x 2 on day of Trial 1 .1 .1 89.4
N/A 102 9.1 9.1 98.5
None 2 .2 .2 98.7
On day of trial 11 1.0 1.0 99.6
On day of trial + ADM its
1 .1 .1 99.7
Breac h
On day of trial to ABH
1 .1 .1 99.8
only Guilty
On day of trial to IP(1) 1 .1 .1 99.9
To S39 only 1 .1 .1 100.0
Total 1127 100.0 100.0
Know nDV Per pe trator
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid 1001 88.8 88.8 88.8
No 31 2.8 2.8 91.6
Not Know n 39 3.5 3.5 95.0
Poss ibly 1 .1 .1 95.1
Y es 52 4.6 4.6 99.7
Y es * 1 .1 .1 99.8
Y es Def 1 1 .1 .1 99.9
Y es * 1 .1 .1 100.0
Total 1127 100.0 100.0
In breach of probation order or civil order
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1004 89.1 89.1 89.1
No 79 7.0 7.0 96.1
No* 1 .1 .1 96.2
Not Know n 11 1.0 1.0 97.2
Yes 29 2.6 2.6 99.7
Yes * 2 .2 .2 99.9
Yes * 1 .1 .1 100.0
Total 1127 100.0 100.0
29 January 2011 Page 68
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
Change s to BConditions
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid 1031 91.5 91.5 91.5
A s above w ithout
1 .1 .1 91.6
Presenting
Changes 1 .1 .1 91.7
Condition re Children
1 .1 .1 91.7
deleted
No 1 .1 .1 91.8
No Contac t Condition
1 .1 .1 91.9
dropped
None 78 6.9 6.9 98.8
None (Note Def 3 Breach
1 .1 .1 98.9
of Conditional Discharge
Nonew 1 .1 .1 99.0
Remained in Custody
af ter intimidation - f ew 1 .1 .1 99.1
days
Reporting Condition W/P 1 .1 .1 99.2
Residence Condition
1 .1 .1 99.3
added
RIC 2 .2 .2 99.5
RIC f or s ome time ago 1 .1 .1 99.6
RIC then Unconditinal
1 .1 .1 99.6
Bail
Unconditional - 1 .1 .1 99.7
Unconditional 3 .3 .3 100.0
Total 1127 100.0 100.0
V ictim 1Re traction
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid 1004 89.1 89.1 89.1
No 50 4.4 4.4 93.5
No s ee over 1 .1 .1 93.6
No but see below 1 .1 .1 93.7
No complaint made 1 .1 .1 93.8
No see below 8 .7 .7 94.5
No See below 1 .1 .1 94.6
No* 1 .1 .1 94.7
See below 1 .1 .1 94.8
See below Not know n 1 .1 .1 94.9
See ov er 1 .1 .1 94.9
Y es 55 4.9 4.9 99.8
Y es (both) 1 .1 .1 99.9
Y es but no Statement
1 .1 .1 100.0
taken
Total 1127 100.0 100.0
29 January 2011 Page 69
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
Reason4Dis m iss al
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid 1037 92.0 92.0 92.0
Ev idential Conc erns 12 1.1 1.1 93.1
Public Interes t 12 1.1 1.1 94.1
Public Interes t/V ic tim
1 .1 .1 94.2
Withdraw al
V ic tim Withdraw al 64 5.7 5.7 99.9
V ic tim Withdraw al
1 .1 .1 100.0
Breac h prov ed)
Total 1127 100.0 100.0
Bind Ove r
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1000 88.7 88.7 88.7
12 months + s um of £43
1 .1 .1 88.8
costs
12 months in the sum of
1 .1 .1 88.9
£100
12 months in the sum of
1 .1 .1 89.0
£100.00
12 months in the sum of
1 .1 .1 89.1
£150
12 months in the sum of
1 .1 .1 89.2
£500.00
18 months + £100 c os ts 1 .1 .1 89.3
6 months - s um of £200 1 .1 .1 89.4
6 months in s um of £100 1 .1 .1 89.4
6 months in s um of
1 .1 .1 89.5
£100.00
6 months in the s um of
6 .5 .5 90.1
£100
6 months in the s um of
1 .1 .1 90.2
£75.00
In the sum of £100 CEN
1 .1 .1 90.2
ETH not on CPS f ile
xx x months in the s um of
110 9.8 9.8 100.0
£x xx .x x
Total 1127 100.0 100.0
29 January 2011 Page 70
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
Conditional Dis char ge
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1112 98.7 98.7 98.7
12 months 8 .7 .7 99.4
12 months +
1 .1 .1 99.5
£50.00 c os ts
12 months anf
1 .1 .1 99.6
f orf eit drugs
2 years 3 .3 .3 99.8
6 months 2 .2 .2 100.0
Total 1127 100.0 100.0
Com pensation
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid 1100 97.6 97.6 97.6
£100 1 .1 .1 97.7
£100 Fine £100 +
1 .1 .1 97.8
£450 c osts
£100 + £50 costs 1 .1 .1 97.9
£100 + £80 costs 1 .1 .1 98.0
£100.00+ £100 c osts 1 .1 .1 98.0
£110 to IP(1) 1 .1 .1 98.1
£150 3 .3 .3 98.4
£150 + £150 costs 1 .1 .1 98.5
£150 + £50 costs 1 .1 .1 98.6
£150 + £50.00 cos ts 1 .1 .1 98.7
£200 1 .1 .1 98.8
£200 + £100 c os ts 1 .1 .1 98.8
£250 + £100 c os ts on
1 .1 .1 98.9
Damage to f ront door
£250 + £70 costs 2 .2 .2 99.1
£300 1 .1 .1 99.2
£50 4 .4 .4 99.6
£50.00 2 .2 .2 99.7
£50.00 IP (1) : £50.00
1 .1 .1 99.8
IP (2)
£75.00 1 .1 .1 99.9
£80.00 f or Criminal
1 .1 .1 100.0
Damage
Total 1127 100.0 100.0
29 January 2011 Page 71
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
FINE
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid .00 123 10.9 96.9 96.9
50.00 2 .2 1.6 98.4
150.00 1 .1 .8 99.2
200.00 1 .1 .8 100.0
Total 127 11.3 100.0
Mis sing System 1000 88.7
Total 1127 100.0
Com m unity Re habilitation Order
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1115 98.9 98.9 98.9
12 months 6 .5 .5 99.5
2 years 2 .2 .2 99.6
2 Years 2 .2 .2 99.8
80 hours 1 .1 .1 99.9
9 months + costs £70.00 1 .1 .1 100.0
Total 1127 100.0 100.0
Com unity Penalty Order
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid 1121 99.5 99.5 99.5
100 hours 2 .2 .2 99.6
120 hours 1 .1 .1 99.7
60 hours 2 .2 .2 99.9
80 hours 1 .1 .1 100.0
Total 1127 100.0 100.0
Perpe trators Program m e
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1126 99.9 99.9 99.9
Yes 1 .1 .1 100.0
Total 1127 100.0 100.0
29 January 2011 Page 72
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
Res training Order
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid 1000 88.7 88.7 88.7
12 months 1 .1 .1 88.8
2 years 1 .1 .1 88.9
2 Y ears f or IP (2) only 1 .1 .1 89.0
xx x months 124 11.0 11.0 100.0
Total 1127 100.0 100.0
Cus todial Se nte nce
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid 1124 99.7 99.7 99.7
2 months 1 .1 .1 99.8
4 months 1 .1 .1 99.9
6 months 1 .1 .1 100.0
Total 1127 100.0 100.0
Cas e Outcom e
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid 2070 96.1 96.1 96.1
23/3/04 1 .0 .0 96.1
24/2/04 1 .0 .0 96.2
4/5/04 1 .0 .0 96.2
Case Discontinued by
27 1.3 1.3 97.5
Notic e
Case Dismis sed - NEO 30 1.4 1.4 98.9
Case Dismis sed -
14 .6 .6 99.5
Withdraw n
Case Dismis sed 1 .0 .0 99.6
Conditional Disc harge 1 .0 .0 99.6
Found Not Guilty A f ter
8 .4 .4 100.0
Trial
Total 2154 100.0 100.0
Number of court hearings per case
Number of court hearings Number of cases
1 20
2 51
3 38
4 11
5 3
6 3
7 1
29 January 2011 Page 73
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
Homelessness Services (WCC) Data
Breakdown of Domestic Violence cases for the period of April 1st 2004 – March 31st 2005
Number of referrals received by the Homeless Services Unit 2031
Number of applications taken by the Homeless Services Unit 1461
Violent relationship breakdown applications 189
Number of children present 261
Referrals from within Wolverhampton 138
Age Breakdown
Under 18 8 (4.23%)
18 – 25 62 (32.8)
26 – 54 112 (59.2)
55+ 7 (3.70%)
Outcome of Domestic Violence cases by Age Breakdown
Under 18
Not Homeless / Threatened 4 Number of children present 6
Full Re-housing Duty Accepted 4 Referrals from Wolverhampton 7
8
18-25
Not Homeless / Threatened 30 Number of children present 63
Intentionally Homeless 1 Referrals from Wolverhampton 38
Full Re-housing Duty Accepted 31
62
26-54
Not Homeless / Threatened 49 Number of children present 191
Homeless Non-Priority 1 Referrals from Wolverhampton 87
(Given advice and assistance)
Homeless Non-Priority 1
(Perm Accommodation Secured)
Full Re-housing Duty Accepted 61
112
55+
Not Homeless / Threatened 2 Number of children present 1
Full Re-housing Duty Accepted 4 Referrals from Wolverhampton 6
Intentionally Homeless 1
7
29 January 2011 Page 74
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
Ethnic Origin Breakdown
White – British 111 (58.73%)
White – Irish 1 (0.52%)
White – Other 1 (0.52%)
Mixed – White & Black Caribbean 10 (5.29%)
Mixed – White & Black African 0 (0%)
Mixed – White & Asian 2 (1.05%)
Mixed – Other 2 (1.05%)
Asian – Indian 37 (19.57%)
Asian – Pakistani 7 (3.70%)
Asian – Bangladeshi 1 (0.52%)
Asian – Other 0 (0%)
Black – Caribbean 8 (4.23%)
Black – African 2 (1.05%)
Black – Other 3 (1.58%)
Chinese 1 (0.58%)
Other 3 (1.58%)
Domestic Violence Cases by Ethnic Origin Breakdown
Under 18
White – British 6
Mixed – White & Black Caribbean 1
Asian – Indian 1
8
18-25
White – British 38
Mixed – White & Black Caribbean 5
Mixed – White & Asian 1
Asian – Indian 8
Asian – Pakistani 2
Asian – Bangladeshi 1
Black – African 1
Black – Other 3
Other 3
62
26-54
White – British 66
White – Other 1
Mixed – White & Black Caribbean 4
Mixed – White & Asian 1
Mixed – Other 2
Asian – Indian 25
Asian – Pakistani 4
Black – Caribbean 7
Black – African 1
29 January 2011 Page 75
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
Chinese 1
112
55+
White – British 1
White – Irish 1
Asian – Indian 3
Asian – Pakistani 1
Black – Caribbean 1
7
Domestic Cases by priority Need
No indications of priority need 6
Dependant Children 125
Pregnant 5
16/17 year old – not relevant child 3
18-21 year old – former relevant child 1
Elderly 1
Mental health and learning disabilities 4
Domestic Violence (Special) 35
Violence / threat of 9
189
Outcome of Cases
Not Homeless / Threatened 85 (44.97%)
Homeless Non-Priority (Given advice and assistance) 1 (0.52%)
Homeless Non-Priority (Permanent accommodation secured) 1 (0.52%)
Full Re-housing Duty Accepted 100 (52.91%)
Intentionally Homeless 2 (1.05%)
189
Domestic Violence Cases in temporary accommodation 2004/2005
Bed & Breakfast 03 Other Hostels 13
Ellerton Walk 11 The Haven 34
Homeless at home 45 The Whitehouse 06
Jericho House 08
Other 69
29 January 2011 Page 76
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
AWAAZ Data
APRIL 2004 TO MARCH 2005
Religion Language Source of Relationship of Action/Ad No. of Referrals
Spoken Referral victim/perpetrator vice taken each
successful Month
Sikh Punjabi Self referral partner N/K April 04
3
Sikh Punjabi Self referral husband N/K May 04
3
Sikh Punjabi Self referral husband N/K June 04
2
Sikh Punjabi Whitmore Reans husband N/K July 04
Advice Centre 1
Hindu Punjabi Mrs Johal of another lady N/K August 04
Haque Centre 0
Hindu Punjabi Self referral husband N/K September 04
0
Sikh Punjabi Self referral husband N/K October 04
2
Hindu Punjabi Self referral In-laws N/K November 04
4
Sikh Punjabi Self referral husband N/K December 04
2
Sikh Punjabi Self referral husband/In-laws N/K January 05
2
Sikh Punjabi Self referral husband N/K February 05
1
Sikh Punjabi Self referral husband/In-laws N/K March 05
1
N/K N/K Self referral husband/In-laws N/K
N/K Punjabi Self referral Husband/In-laws N/K
Hindu Punjabi/English Self referral N/K N/K
Sikh Punjabi Self referral Husband/In-laws N/K
N/K Punjabi Self referral N/K N/K
Islam Gujarati Self referral Husband N/K
Sikh Punjabi Self referral Husband N/K
29 January 2011 Page 77
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE University of Wolverhampton
Evaluation of the Wolverhampton Specialist Domestic Violence Court:
A Baseline Study to inform LPSA DV targets
Victim Support Data
APRIL 2004 TO MARCH 2005
Referral source
Police Self- Other Other victim Other Total
referral source support branch agency
1260 76 72 46 25 1479
Minus police referrals the figure is 218. Of these, 53 were children aged 15 and under who
would not have been the actual injured party. The remaining figure of 165 is broken down as
follows:
Gender by age
Gender Age 16-18 Age 19-30 Age 31-50 Age 51+ Age N/K Total
Female 9 47 69 5 23 153
Male 1 2 3 2 5 13
Gender by ethnicity
Ethnicity White Asian Black Black Chinese N/K
Caribbean African
Female 64 17 17 55
Male 3 4 6
The above figures do not represent the actual victim support working figure of 155 clients, which
are broken down as follows:
Gender by age
Gender Age 16-18 Age 19-30 Age 31-50 Age 51+ Age N/K Total
Female 5 37 73 5 30 150
Male 1 3 2 6
Gender by ethnicity
Ethnicity White Asian Black Black Chinese N/K
Caribbean African
Female 32 26 6 86
Male 3 3
First language spoken
Language English Punjabi Urdu Hindi Gujarati
Female 146 4
Male 4 2
29 January 2011 Page 78
