Police contact with woman before being murdered by ex-partner – West Yorkshire Police, August 2019
On 16 August 2019, a woman made a telephone complaint to Derbyshire Constabulary in relation to an allegation that her ex-partner had threatened a male friend of hers.
On 19 August, her ex-partner attended a West Yorkshire Police (WYP) station to admit that he had threatened the woman’s friend. The ex-partner was already known to the police as having a history of mental health and domestic violence issues.
On 19 August, the woman attended a WYP station. She made a complaint in relation to allegations that her ex-partner had also made threats to her, her friends and family, if she ever broke up with him. A witness statement and Domestic Abuse, Stalking and Honour Based Violence (DASH) risk assessment form was completed with her.
Between 21 August and 12 September, her ex-partner made several complaints to WYP regarding the woman and other persons.
The woman made a further visit to a WYP station, made telephone calls and sent emails to WYP with regard to the progress of her complaint against her ex-partner in the following days.
On 7 September, the woman’s father reported that her ex-partner had harassed him in the street.
On 9 September, WYP received a complaint from the woman’s male friend in relation to alleged threats that her ex-partner had made about him.
On 12 September, her ex-partner attended a WYP station where he provided a witness statement.
Later, on 12 September, WYP received a report that her ex-partner had stabbed the woman multiple times and she was reported dead later that day.
Her ex-partner was subsequently arrested and charged with her murder. At court he pleaded guilty to manslaughter with diminished responsibility, and on 8 September 2020, he was sentenced to life imprisonment and was detained in a mental health facility. If the hospital order becomes no longer necessary, then he would serve a minimum of 12 years in prison.
During our investigation we obtained and analysed a large volume of documentary and audio evidence including local and national police policies and guidance documents, local police incident records and police telephone conversations. We also obtained a substantial number of statements from police officers, police staff and members of the public.
During the course of this investigation, we identified that a serving WYP officer may have acted in a manner that, if proven or admitted, would justify the bringing of disciplinary proceedings. We served a notice of investigation on that officer and received a detailed written response. Following the receipt of that written response the officer in question was interviewed by the IOPC under a ‘misconduct’ caution.
We examined whether the officer, who was new to the police service and had ‘probationary’ status, had followed correct procedures when the threats were reported. We also considered whether, had this officer uploaded information to police systems more promptly, the level of risk presented by the woman’s ex-partner would have been more obvious to other officers who looked him up on the system. As part of this, we considered whether the officer’s work should have been supervised by a more experienced officer.
The officer co-operated fully with this investigation. The investigation compared the decisions and actions of that officer against relevant local and national policy.
The IOPC did not investigate the woman’s death as that was investigated separately by WYP and HM Coroner.
The investigation concluded that the officer did not have a case to answer for misconduct but identified performance matters that could be addressed by way of management action.
We concluded our investigation in May 2021 and shared our report with WYP who agreed with our findings.
On 6 November 2023, HM Coroner announced his decision not to hold a formal inquest into the woman’s death.
We carefully considered whether there were any learning opportunities arising from the investigation. We make learning recommendations to improve policing and public confidence in the police complaints system and prevent a recurrence of similar incidents.
In this case, we identified learning in relation to training in recognising and risk assessing reports of domestic abuse, the supervision of probationary staff and the DASH risk assessment form and how it is completed.
WYP accepted all of our recommendations.
IOPC reference
Recommendations
The IOPC recommends that West Yorkshire Police reminds all officers and police staff that intelligence gained from incident reports should be uploaded to individual Niche intelligence profiles at the earliest opportunity.
An IOPC investigation identified that significant intelligence relating to allegations of domestic abuse was not recorded on police systems. This meant that this information was not available to other personnel and could not assist with decision making or the assessment of risk to the victim.
Force response:
Accepted – this can be reiterated and policy checked, but should be taking place already, not just within DA but all crime types.
Accepted – SCGU have amended the Force’s DA policy and this need will continue to be reiterated on the Force’s DA meeting at strategic (PVP), tactical (DA Tasking & Delivery Group) and operational (DA DI meeting).
This also forms part of the Force strategic and tactical plans which Force Intelligence are allocated. Translating operational information into intelligence is however an issue across all crime types and not just DA but is clearly a priority given the threat and risk associated with it.
IOPC explanatory notes on the force response:
DA - domestic abuse
SCGU - Safeguarding Central Governance Unit
PVP - Protecting Vulnerable Persons
DI - Detective Inspector
SLT - Senior Leadership Team
The IOPC recommends that a system is put in place to track domestic abuse cases that are returned to officers because the minimum standards of investigation were not met. This system should ensure that cases are progressed with appropriate supervision and returned to the safeguarding unit for investigation where appropriate.
This follows an IOPC investigation where a case was returned to a probationary constable because the minimum standards of investigation had not been met. The officer had not yet completed his probationary service and should not have led the investigation without supervision. When the minimum standards were met the investigation was not referred to the safeguarding unit or domestic abuse team who should have been responsible for investigating this incident.
Force response:
Accepted with caveat – WYP do not have a system that can easily be used to track cases in the manner suggested in this and recommendations from other IOPC reviews (redacted). Niche does not have this functionality. Given the differing sizes of districts in the Force, differing volumes and slightly different DA Team structures, this would have to be done at a local level. The potential for cases dropping between the pavement cracks cannot be ignored but the response cannot currently be automated. This is however being reiterated on the Force DIs meeting (it has been raised before) and will need to be shared with Response managers and supervisors, as it does link in with recommendation 3. SCGU can include this aspect in its DA audit schedule.
The IOPC recommends that West Yorkshire Police should ensure that all probationary officers that are deployed have appropriate support in place to review and supervise their work.
This follows an IOPC Investigation where a probationary WYP officer dealt with a serious domestic abuse investigation. The probationer was not supervised appropriately nor did he receive supervisory support and guidance.
Force response:
Accepted – this should be occurring in any event, so would simply be a reiteration of what supervisors should be doing with student officers’ workloads, but especially those involving vulnerability.
Accepted – it is considered that this should be occurring in any event, although there is an acceptance that it hasn’t in this incident. Supervision of all response officers managing DA incidents or other incidents of vulnerability, and especially those who are young in service has been reiterated with District SLTs.
Learning & Organisational Development will be sighted on this for awareness in Student Officer training and new supervisor training. District DA meetings, that are currently responding to the Force’s increased scrutiny on DA will also take this into account when holding their own district structures to account.
[Recommendation 4 not taken forward]
The IOPC recommends that West Yorkshire Police review their domestic abuse policies and training to ensure that officers are clear on their responsibilities and the procedures that should be followed when dealing with domestic abuse incidents.
This recommendation follows an IOPC investigation where a probationary officer failed to understand and adequately complete a domestic abuse risk assessment (known as DASH), failed to understand and complete incident logs or complete other investigative tasks.
Force response:
Accepted – although this is part of SCGU’s routine business, but district will be reminded that compliance does sit with them.
Accepted – this will continue to be reiterated as in recommendation 3.
It is recommended that West Yorkshire Police remind Sergeants that DASH risk assessments and any supporting statements should be reviewed to endorse the risk level attributed to a victim.
This recommendation follows an IOPC investigation where a probationary officer failed adequately complete a domestic violence risk assessment. This was not subject to any supervisory oversight.
Force response:
Accepted with caveat – this simply needs reiteration – it is and has been routine business.
Accepted - DASH is completed at the scene on officer’s handheld devices. Where the response to a question is ‘yes’ or ‘other’ it is mandatory for officers to provide further information. The Force is developing a data platform which will allow us to quality assure the responses on the DASH, for example if adequate information is not provided this can be addressed with the officers concerned at the earliest opportunity.
Ahead of this development being finalised SCGU will have planned DASH dip samples to ensure that this is not being done.
The IOPC recommends that West Yorkshire Police remind officers that when completing a DASH risk assessment form, if the category ‘other’ is chosen, a full explanation must be provided in the free text field. In addition, routine audits should be undertaken to ensure that the use of single character answers is not used routinely.
This follows an IOPC investigation whereby an officer failed to fully understand and accurately complete a DASH risk assessment in respect of a victim. In addition, no PNC checks were completed, No explanatory notes were included when an answer was completed as ‘other’ and insufficient appreciation was shown about why certain questions were asked on the form.
Comprehensive completion of the form would have provided additional information which would assist when supervisors review and validate the risk posed to a victim.
Force response:
Concerns – the WYP DASH form is an enhanced version of the national form and already includes areas that other Forces do not include, such as child demeanour.
- that any linked events and/or convictions are recorded on the DASH to ensure that these are considered when assessing the overall risk to the victim; this is already included
- that a free text field is provided (and mandatory to complete) when an answer is given as ‘other’, and; this is already a function but can be overridden if an officer puts a full stop in the text – so this is a compliance issue
- that it is clear from the DASH template (or accompanying explanation notes) why certain questions are asked. DASH risk assessments are completed on handheld Samsung devices so we wonder why explanatory notes are required given that DASH is trained extensively to front line officers. HMICFRS feedback is that the generally level of DASH completion is good so again we would suggest that this is an issue of compliance. Nicola Pringle and myself are happy to discuss this with the IOPC though.
IOPC explanatory notes on the force response:
HMICFRS – His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services.
Last sentence: the writer is DCI Allan Raw of WYP, Nicola Pringle is Safeguarding Delivery Manager.
[Recommendation 8 not taken forward]
[Recommendation 9 not taken forward]