Sample [Name Redacted] RETROSPECTIVE (DA/DV) RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT
Descrição do Produto
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
THE ADVOCACY FUND 3 Ferguson Place Abingdon, Oxfordshire UK OX14 3YF Paul Randle-Jolliffe Esq Chairman chairman@advocacy‐fund.org
15 16
ADVOCACY FUND DOMESTIC ABUSE/ VIOLENCE (DA/DV) REPORTING SYSTEM
17 18 19 20 21 22
VICTIM SUBJECT RE: NAME REDACTED DV/DA Risk Assessment & Australian/Tasmanian DV/DA Systems Analyse report
23 24 25 26
SECTION 1:
27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
RETROSPECTIVE DOMESTIC ABUSE/VIOLENCE RISK ASSESSMENT & REPORT
SECTION 2: RISK ASSESSMENT CASE DOCUMENTS REPORT
SECTION 3: AUSTRALIAN/TASMANIAN DV/DA SYSTEMS ANALYSE REPORT
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
ADVOCACY FUND DOMESTIC ABUSE/ VIOLENCE (DA/DV) REPORTING SYSTEM DV/DA Risk Assessment & Australian/Tasmanian DV/DA Systems Analyse report
SECTION 1: RETROSPECTIVE DOMESTIC ABUSE/VIOLENCE RISK ASSESSMENT & REPORT VICTIM SUBJECT RE: NAME REDACTED Thursday, 16 June 2016 2|Page
1 2
Table of Contents: Section 1
3
REPORT INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 4
4
SECTION 1: Standalone Retrospective Victim DA/DV Risk Assessment (RRA) ....... 5
5
Background to this Risk Assessment ..................................................................... 5
6
AF AFRIT RA Model ............................................................................................ 6
7
RA Screening Interview......................................................................................... 6
8
Conduct of RA Questions ...................................................................................... 6
9
Retrospective Risk Assessment Results..................................................................... 6
10
DA/DV Definitions .................................................................................................... 7
11
Definitions: United Kingdom ................................................................................ 7
12
MeRIT Merseyside Police (Liverpool) RA Model ................................................ 7
13
Definitions: Australia ............................................................................................. 8
14
Australian Bureau of Statistics' (ABS) 2012 Personal Safety Survey (PSS) ......... 9
15
Australian Attorney-General’s Department Paper ................................................... 10
16
DUAL RAs in Australia............................................................................................... 11
17
AVERT identified gaps........................................................................................ 12
18
Dual RAs Essential .............................................................................................. 13
19
Retrospective Risk Assessment Results & Report Detail ........................................ 15
20
Results require existing process review ................................................................... 15
21
ABUSE BY PROXY CONTEXT ................................................................................ 16
22
Report Section 1: Recommended Outcomes ........................................................... 18
23 24
ADVOCACY FUND RISK IDENTIFICATION TOOL (AFRIT) QUESTIONNAIRE ...................................................................................................................................... 19
25
RA FINAL SCORING................................................................................................. 23
26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT SUMMARY .............................................................. 4
3|Page
RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT SUMMARY
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
RA Subject: NAME REDACTED Subject Location: Tasmania, Commonwealth of Australia Subject Status: Alleged Perpetrator Report Date: Thursday, 16 June 2016 Report By: Paul Randle‐Jolliffe Esq RRA Questionnaire by: Peter Nichols Thursday, 09 June 2016 GMT ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ AFRIT/MeRIT RA Score: 336 DA/DV RA Out Come: Subject is assessed as a victim at very high risk RA Score Standard: At risk of murder (or equivalent regional rating) Report Outlook: Subject is False Positive Perpetrator AF RRA Report Summary Recommendations: Police & Court & others to urgently review and take protective measures.
REPORT INTRODUCTION This report has been conducted by myself, Paul Randle‐Jolliffe, as chairman of the Advocacy Fund and developer of the Dual Risk Assessment (DRA) & Retrospective Risk Assessment (RRA), as the report writer from outside of the Commonwealth of Australia & Tasmanian jurisdictions as there are no known advocates with DRA or RRA experience within the aforementioned jurisdictions. This Report Is composed of 4 Sections: 1. Standalone Retrospective Victim DA/DV Risk Assessment of the Subject 2. Review of Case Documents 3. Review of Australian/Tasmanian Law & Policy/Other Localised Contexts 4. Final Conclusions (Each conducted in sequential order with updated review of any prior conclusions in the subsequent section)
The report writer has experience over the past twelve years of DA/DA & Family Law: Research, Advocacy and Reporting inside and outside UK as well as appearances in court as an advocate or witness as well as involvement in various significant cases of public interest in the UK including the submission of amicus and other reports in the High Court and is familiar with court standards of evidence in both civil and criminal and court procedures in the UK and the generality of those in other common law jurisdictions.
The report writer gives full permission for this report to be used in proceedings and is ready to give sworn testimony if required. 4|Page
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
SECTION 1: Standalone Retrospective Victim DA/DV Risk Assessment (RRA)
This section of the report has been conducted remotely after; 1. A 20 minute skype face to face “screening interview” with the subject, prior to; 2. An AF AFRIT (MeRIT based) risk assessment questionnaire conducted by telephone by an Experienced Family Advocate located in Sydney (known to me for more than five years) and with the subject in Tasmania. The following were reviewed for this section for a general understanding of the context of DA/DV in Australia, but no case papers were reviewed.
Australian Government Definition of Domestic Violence Australian Bureau of Statistics' (ABS) 2012 Personal Safety Survey (PSS)
Australian AG’s Department Paper: AVERT Family Violence Collaborative Responses in the Family Law System. Screening, Risk Assessment and Safety Planning Paper
Background to this Risk Assessment
I was approached by the advocate to see if I could assist the subject due to the advocate, Peter Nicholls, knowing that I have extensive prior experience in family legal matters and in particular DA/DV related ones.
I do not tend at this time to get involved directly in family law cases and would, due to the distance, tend only to offer some potential pointers due also to time constraints, if suitable. In this case my focus is DA/DV related only.
I asked what was the issue and the advocate and subject gave a brief outline regarding child contact proceedings and some allegations of DA/DV against the subject, which were stated by the subject as false and negatively impacting contact and proceedings. Subject also indicated that there was a local DV/DA agency that had conducted a DV/DA report but had never spoken with him and that police had been involved.
At this point I realised that I should not proceed to give any advice on the child contact proceedings and that my focus should a DA/DV risk assessment and in this case it would need to be a Retrospective Risk Assessment (RRA) as the matters related involved a history over time and were not (current) single incident based.
Knowing Peter Nicholls’ extensive level of experience as an advocate in both the UK and Australia I had no hesitation in asking him to conduct the RA Questionnaire for an RRA but knowing he would not be familiar with DRA and RRA reporting I informed him I would do the report; I gave him the AF research report upon which these are based, the AF AFRIT Model RA and the AFRIT RA Guidance.
5|Page
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
After providing Peter Nicholls with the AFRIT model I conducted a face to face Skype screening interview with the subject for twenty minutes, so I could assess his demeanour and ask some probing questions, but without prejudicing my view on the RRA questionnaire results I did not go into details that would be covered by the RA questionnaire. I was satisfied that there were enough indicators of someone who was a likely victim of DA/DV and also as in my prior experience as a likely victim of abuse by proxy resulting in him being a “false positive perpetrator” and this warranted the RRA. There were enough indicators for me to suspect that he was a possible high risk victim.
31
Retrospective Risk Assessment Results
AF AFRIT RA Model The AF AFRIT RA [Advocacy Fund Risk Identification Toolkit] is based upon MeRIT, UK Merseyside Police’s Risk Assessment Toolkit. MeRIT is the UK’s most comprehensive and advanced DA/DA RA model and was developed for Merseyside Police by a criminal psychologist with experienced domestic violence (abuse) practitioners, input from operational officers and victims and scientific analysis but has been adapted by the Advocacy Fund to be genderless and so as to enable the AF Dual & Retrospective RA model. RA Screening Interview
Conduct of RA Questions
Peter Nicholls conducted the AF AFRIT RA promptly and to high professional standard as I expected he would and completed the RA scoring and I reviewed each question and the scoring.
No question answered which based upon other questions would have likely be an error of understanding of the questions in context of a Retrospective RA and could therefore look to have been answered wrongly and there seemed to be no indication in my experience of exaggeration.
AFRIT/MeRIT RA Score
336
DA/DV RA Out Come
Subject is assessed as a victim at very high risk
RA Score Standard
At risk of murder (or equivalent regional rating)
AF RRA Report Summary Subject is False Positive Perpetrator, Police & Court & Recommendations others to Urgently Review and take protective measures 32 33 34 35 36
The RRA Questionnaire and Scoring is attached to this report, however before addressing the substance of the report it is helpful to provide background definitions and context regarding domestic abuse and systems. 6|Page
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
38 39 40 41 42
DA/DV Definitions Definitions: United Kingdom
“The UK cross‐government definition of domestic violence and abuse is: “any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive, threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are, or have been, intimate partners or family members regardless of gender or sexuality. The abuse can encompass, but is not limited to psychological, physical, sexual, financial and emotional” Controlling behaviour is defined as a range of acts designed to make a person subordinate and/or dependent by isolating them from sources of support, exploiting their resources and capacities for personal gain, depriving them of the means needed for independence, resistance and escape and regulating their everyday behaviour. Coercive behaviour is defined as: an act or a pattern of acts of assault, threats, humiliation and intimidation or other abuse that is used to harm, punish, or frighten their victim. This definition includes so‐called honour‐based violence, female genital mutilation and forced marriage. Tackling domestic abuse and keeping victims safe is both vitally important, and complicated. The police and others services need to have the right tools, resources, training and partnerships in place to help it identify victims and keep them safe. It also needs to investigate and bring to justice offenders, when no two domestic abuse environments are the same, and some victims have suffered in silence for years or even decades. MeRIT Merseyside Police (Liverpool) RA Model
28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 All domestic abuse cases are assessed using the Merseyside Risk Identification Tool (MeRIT), by dedicated risk assessors. In Merseyside, victims of domestic abuse are identified by the force when a call is made to the police by a member of the public via the force command and control 7|Page
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
room; when a victim attends a police station; and when they are referred from other agencies, such as the health service or social care; or at a multi‐agency risk assessment conference (MARAC). Staff working in the force control room are trained to ask questions of callers to identify whether they are at immediate risk and if they have experienced domestic abuse before. The force’s system provides a series of questions from a drop‐down menu to ask the caller. For every 100 domestic abuse crimes recorded there were 86 arrests in Merseyside. For most forces the number is between 45 and 90. The force policy on domestic abuse requires officers to complete the Merseyside Risk Identification Tool (MeRIT) form for every incident of domestic abuse – to “identify any risk factors at that time in order to inform the risk assessment process.” Attending officers gather the relevant information from the victim at the scene. The formal risk assessment takes place later, at the police station, by dedicated staff on receipt of the form. Though not force policy, Dual Risk Assessments are conducted in Merseyside. The Police in the Isle of Wight as part of Hampshire & Isle of Wight Police are the only force in the UK to formally apply use of Dual RA’s, though others are looking at the model. Definitions: Australia
Domestic violence includes:
emotional abuse—blaming the victim for all problems in the relationship, undermining the victim’s self‐esteem and self‐worth through comparisons with others, withdrawing interest and engagement and emotional blackmail verbal abuse—swearing and humiliation in private and public, focusing on intelligence, sexuality, body image or the victim’s capacity as a parent or spouse social abuse—systematic isolation from family and friends, instigating and controlling relocations to a place where the victim has no social circle or employment opportunities and preventing the victim from going out to meet people economic abuse—controlling all money, forbidding access to bank accounts, providing an inadequate ‘allowance’, preventing the victim seeking or holding employment and taking wages earned by the victim psychological abuse—making threats regarding custody of children, asserting the justice system will not believe or support the victim, destroying property, abusing pets and driving dangerously spiritual abuse—denial and/or misuse of religious beliefs or practices to force victims into subordinate roles and misusing religious or spiritual traditions to justify physical violence or other abuse physical abuse—direct assaults on the body, use of weapons (including objects), assault of children, locking the victim out of the house, sleep and food deprivation, and sexual abuse—any form of pressured/unwanted sex or sexual degradation, causing pain during sex, coercive sex without protection against pregnancy or sexually
8|Page
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
transmitted disease, making the victim perform sexual acts unwillingly and criticising or using degrading insults
In Australia Family violence is a broader term referring to violence between family members as well as violence between intimate partners. This term also covers a complexity of behaviours beyond that of direct physical violence. The Australian and New South Wales Law Reform Commission’s review of family violence law in Australia recommended that state and territory legislation ‘should provide that family violence is violent or threatening behaviour, or any other form of behaviour that coerces or controls a family member or causes that family member to be fearful. Australian Bureau of Statistics' (ABS) 2012 Personal Safety Survey (PSS)
Conducted from February to December 2012, the survey collected information about the nature and extent of violence experienced by men and women since the age of 15, including their experience of violence in the 12 months prior to the survey. It also collected detailed information about men's and women's experience of current and previous partner violence, lifetime experience of stalking, physical and sexual abuse before the age of 15 and general feelings of safety. “Experience of partner violence ‐ since the age of 15 Women were more likely than men to experience violence by a partner. In 2012, an estimated 17% of all women aged 18 years and over (1,479,900 women) and 5.3% of all men aged 18 years and over (448,000 men) had experienced violence by a partner since the age of 15.” “Experience of partner violence during the last 12 months Women were more likely than men to have experienced violence by a partner in the 12 months prior to the survey. In the 12 months prior to the survey an estimated 132,500 women (1.5% of all women aged 18 years and over) had experienced violence by a partner compared to 51,800 men (0.6% of all men aged 18 years and over).” However the ABS and other surveys do not assess the incidences of Mutual perpetrators (common couple violence i.e. equal) Mutual perpetrators but one is reactive victim Perpetrator makes victim look like perpetrator
Perpetrator Inciting others to go for victim by false reporting (here can also include other family and officials such as the police, DV agency and courts) i.e. abuse by proxy.
9|Page
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
Australian Attorney-General’s Department Paper AVERT Family Violence: Collaborative Responses in the Family Law System. Screening, Risk Assessment and Safety Planning Paper http://www.avertfamilyviolence.com.au/wp‐ content/uploads/sites/4/2013/06/Screening_Risk_Assessment.pdf Whilst Australia has a highly developed Domestic Abuse support system it suffers from the same inherent design faults and missing elements as many other systems in other jurisdictions which can be summarised as: Gendered Definitions Generated Services Bias Lack of Dual Risk Assessments
AF statement: these put adults and children at risk Whilst the accuracy of the AGs AVERT Family Violence “Risk Factors” is mostly high it recognised that that there are gaps and dealing with Domestic Abuse/Violence is a developing and learning process. AVERT “Risk factors” – Summary points There is no single cause of family violence, but a number of risk factors – characteristics that increase the a history of previous assaults against the victim or others;
Suicide and homicide attempts or threats; Prior arrests; Instability of employment and income; Drug and alcohol misuse; Jealousy;
A sense of likelihood of repeated – can be identified. These risk factors include:
entitlement or possessiveness; Lack of empathy; Childhood abuse and other adverse childhood experiences such as neglect; Instability of relationships; Separation; The victim’s escalating use of violence; Victim’s suicide attempts; Depression; Personality disorder; Low self esteem; Violence towards pets; Misogynist attitudes toward women.
AF would add: A sense of immunity by some women 10 | P a g e
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
In AF’s view is that these fail in practice by what looks like a “Lack of Services to Men” and the “Lack of Dual RA’s as a Required Policy & Practice” as significant risk factors for both men and women with a discourse likely indicator of “Misogynist
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
DUAL RAs in Australia
attitudes toward women” is based upon “that only or that overwhelmingly that DV/DA occurs against women,” whereas the Australian Government Statistics state that male victims are at least 28% of victims in 2012.
Experience in the UK has shown that male victims historically are: 1. Unlikely to report due to male psychology & social expectations 2. Unlikely to report due to being less likely to be taken seriously 3. Unlikely to report due to a lack of reporting sign posting 4. Unlikely to report due to a lack of services 5. Unlikely to report due to cultural discourse 6. Unlikely to report due to being automatically considered to be the abuser Similar figures to those quoted in Australia were prevalent and quoted in the UK, but when these above factors were accounted for and the figures for male victims taken from the Governments own British Crime Surveys were properly looked at, it was shown that male victims were IRO 40% to 50% of all victims, with fluctuations between these figures year on year and that the various prevalence of differing types of abuse within those figures only more or less prevalent by one gender or other. It turned out that the “overwhelming number of females victims” was a discourse narrative based upon/supported by selective figures only and was not the whole picture. It looks as if the same discourse narratives are in action in Australia. Whilst the Attorney General’s AVERT Paper recognises that there may be some Dual Risk Assessments on the ground: “Where the claims of both parties are assessed, and both parties are making mutual claims of violence or abuse the practitioner making the risk assessment..... To this is added: ...should focus on the power imbalance/dynamics between the couple, the vulnerability of each party, and historical patterns of control, to make an assessment of each party’s risk (Neilson 2004, p425‐427).” rather than a first focus of evidence collecting and collation regarding crime, AF finds this most odd as DV/DA is first and foremost a criminal matter and RAs are a step in establishing what to look for in further investigation and how to protect as well as a prediction model, it is vital to look for evidence of crime and further indicators. The initial AF summation is that such an approach is based upon “discourse prejudice.” However in regard to such Dual RAs the AGs report does not specify:
The basis or research used for mentioning Dual RAs except the above ref Where they are if any
11 | P a g e
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
Who they may be done by The extent if so Any reasoning for them Any associated research or results compiled If there are any Policy or Practice or Requirements in any Territory Any AG office expectations in regard to the general use of Dual RAs
The reader of the AVERT Paper is left hanging and this report writer is left wanting to make enquiries of the AG on these points. That being said the framework of dual risk assessment is clearly not a level playing field as a dual risk assessment above is also then caveat limited by: (and it would look like who reports 1st wins, by limiting the second assessment, but no reasoning is given for this, is it that they are obviously guilty? and by another indicator of discourse male “View of gender roles and level of misogyny “ ) “That said, an alleged perpetrator can be engaged in a risk assessment in so far as their: Level of stress or distress Employment and income circumstance Access to weapons View of gender roles and level of misogyny Mental health , including depression or personality disorder Dependence on the victim Level of focus on their (ex) partner Capacity to focus on the needs of their children, and attune to their child’s experience Drug and alcohol use Level of acceptance of the use of violence in general Experience of childhood abuse or violence “
AVERT identified gaps
The AVERT Family Violence paper quotes the following re knowledge gaps amongst family law system professionals: “Laing (2010 p17) has identified concerning knowledge gaps amongst family law system professionals: …who failed to demonstrate understandings of both the complexities of domestic violence and its harmful effects of the development and well being of children… limited understanding of the forms that post separation domestic violence can take… of the impact of trauma on women and children and on the mother‐child relationship… [and] how a woman may present in legal contexts; and of what is required to rebuild a relationship between a child and someone who has abused the trust inherent in the parent‐child relationship.” AF has to question why this does not say: “Impact of trauma on women, men and children and on the mother‐child or father‐child relationship” & “a woman or man may present in legal contexts.” 12 | P a g e
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
Whilst AF Agrees with: “Bagshaw and Brown (2010 p7) concur: …the problem remains that the family law socio‐legal service system has not sought to place adult and child safety after parental separation above all other principles, and unless it can move to do this family violence will remain an unresolved, serious problem for families who seek separation as a way of ending family violence, or who experience family violence as a result of separation.” Dual RAs Essential Even if police or other agencies in Australia do not practice Dual Risk Assessments it should be “de rigor for Australian Family & Domestic Violence Courts to require them under procedural rules”. It is AF experience in the UK that courts, legal professionals and even court workers are generally those least likely to understand the vital role of DA/DV risk assessments as a tool to assist in decisions to be made by the court especially those regarding children, from the above there is no reason to believe Australia is generally any different, let alone factoring in the essential role of Dual RA’s. However, the AVERT Family Violence paper goes on to say: “The identification and appropriate response to family violence is a central responsibility of the family law system. It is the responsibility of all professionals involved in the Family law system to identify and respond to risk of violence, and create and implement processes to support this. Screening, risk assessment and safety planning are complementary processes that support professionals to fulfil their obligations in relation to safe processes, and safe outcomes for clients. They have discrete purposes, and can facilitate multidisciplinary collaboration in relation to client safety. Ralfs, James and Breckenridge (2009) recommend building a culture of response to family violence, involving ongoing reflection and development about the service and its procedures, not only the clients.” And the AVERT paper clearly states: “A requirement for screening is the development of clear protocols about what should happen following a disclosure. To be beneficial, screening must be followed by a positive and appropriate response.”
In this regard it can only be hoped, in regard to this report, that a “positive and appropriate response” will result. The AVERT paper goes on to say: “Identification of family and domestic violence through screening needs to be integrated into everyday work practices. The ‘minutiae of work practices of players in the system – the forms, rules, regulations, documentary practices and communication networks’ (Laing 2003 p. 5) need to be present in the
13 | P a g e
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
implementation of screening tools. This means the constant review of processes and attention to the detail of the implementation of screening or risk assessment. It means ongoing organisational learning, reflective practice and never thinking any detail is too small to require attention.” “Because of the prevalence of family violence, because ‘risk’ is inherent in all family violence (Kropp 2004), and where an organisation screens for family violence, risk assessment is a critical component of the work of all practitioners working in the family law system. Screening is an essential pre‐requisite to comprehensive risk assessment.”
“Risk assessment and screening tools are a stage in an ongoing process of risk management. They are useful not just to predict the likelihood of future violence, but more importantly to inform what can be done to prevent further violence in the future, and ensure our processes (especially those mandated) do not contribute to harm.”
In this regard it can only be hoped, in regard to this report, that a “positive and appropriate response” will result and the contribution to harm by that lack of Dual RA’s recognised and learnt from. And indeed that as “The identification and appropriate response to family violence is a central responsibility of the family law system” that including the required use of Dual & Retrospective RAs can be looked forward to in the short term IN ALL CASES and ensured at all stages. “Chisholm (2009 p.5) is clear in articulating the breadth of responsibility across the family law system for ensuring family violence is ‘disclosed, understood and acted upon’: …whether we are thinking of a lawyer interviewing a client, a dispute resolution practitioner dealing with a new case, the work of a counter clerk at a family court, or of a judicial officer. The family law system, and each component in it, needs to encourage and facilitate the disclosure of family violence, ensure that it is understood, and act effectively upon that understanding.” 14 | P a g e
1 2
Retrospective Risk Assessment Results & Report Detail Retrospective Risk Assessment Results
AFRIT/MeRIT RA Score
336
DA/DV RA Out Come
Subject is assessed as a victim at very high risk
RA Score Standard
At risk of murder (or equivalent regional rating)
AF RRA Report Summary Subject is False Positive Perpetrator, Police & Court & Recommendations others to Urgently Review and take protective measures 3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Results require existing process review The AFRIT/MeRIT RA Score is 336 which is amongst the highest that I have seen in several years of utilising the rating system. I add some considerations below to add context, as the score requires current process and interventions to be reviewed as a matter of some urgency. Scores of 75 or above in the UK warrant treating the alleged victim as “AT RISK OF MURDER” with interventions as follows with MARAC (Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference) involving all agencies as a requirement to consider as below.
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Referral to MARAC (Tasmanian Equivalent)
Referral to IDVA to be considered (Tasmanian Equivalent)
Multi‐agency work, information sharing and action/safety planning
Sanctuary/target hardening (where it is safe to do so) security measures, mobile phone etc
Police intervention – arrest and investigate
Legal protection – Specialist Domestic Violence Court (SDVC), family courts.
Refuge, emergency accommodation
Safeguarding interventions – children and adults
Drug and alcohol services, mental health issues
Additional barriers – forced marriage, street sex workers, immigration status.
There will obviously be similar response systems in Australia and they do not need to be covered in any form in this report as the respective agencies will be aware. Note: Re UK at Risk Of Murder Score Though the scoring of 75 or above does not mean the risk of murder is necessarily high the treatment of at risk of murder indicates the level of harm that high scores indicate and even upon removing the violence scoring against the child in this assessment it still gives a high score for the subject of 252 and the intervention threshold is clearly crossed.
15 | P a g e
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Section 1 Report Criminal Law Context The RRA indicates very clearly that the subject is most a high risk victim and a likely victim of false allegations of being a perpetrator and abuse and abuse by proxy victim of crimes as follows: 1. A false restraining order obtained in a manner that perverts justice 2. False Arrests/Held in Custody in a manner that perverts justice 3. Removal from home (illegal eviction) in a manner that perverts justice 4. Denial of Tools of trade and ability to travel to work theft of car (theft by taking and illegal conversion) 5. Denial of Child Contact/Right to Family Life in a manner that perverts justice 6. Infliction of severe emotional harm 7. Denial of Access to services and Justice Delayed and Denied 8. Costs and Loss of Income & Public Standing & Affects on Health
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
ABUSE BY PROXY CONTEXT The pattern appears as a classic abuse by proxy of a victim dynamic and appears to follow the extract same pattern of proxy abuse as in the UK and in other jurisdictions. This is mainly to achieve; deflection by abusers and/or also to enable intend strategic ends in legal outcomes and/or control of victim, through what are crime strategies against a victim. Though the discourse skewed DV/DA environment in the UK has historically enabled mainly women perpetrators of DV/DA to take advantage in such ways, mostly in child care and property matters, with some being schooled by others into how by others including by those in refuges. AF has disturbingly also seen cases of male perpetrators having learnt the systems vulnerabilities and also being able to do this, with both by done by what might be called a pre emptive strike approach. Sometimes these pre emptive strikes are part of a prior pattern of abuse and at other times are just to enable an intended end outcome advantage due to circumstances change or to create change outcomes and/or to initiate or continue control by an abuser during and/or after a relationship breakup and/or in regard to children and/or material and financial assets depending on the circumstances and pathology of the abuser. There are a number of scenario dynamics which are not suitable to be discussed in depth in this section of this report, but may be covered to a greater degree in another section, they are mentioned only here to aid any further investigation in this case. Dual & Retrospective Risk Assessments are one of the key means to enable such scenarios to be initially assessed as has demonstrated in the county of the Isle of Wight in the UK where they are now universal. In the UK courts are increasingly imprisoning such female discourse based perpetrators, with a primary focus on false rape allegation, to deter what has 16 | P a g e
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
historically been got away with and systems are being adjusted so that police and courts and other authorities aware more aware of and investigate such abuses. But they have jet to understand the reverse discourse males. Another disturbing trend in the UK is that real female victims of DV/DA are having children removed by UK social services, for failure to protect children due to DV/DA, even including when they are safe from the perpetrator and have followed all protocols for protection of themselves and children. And due to this being more common knowledge, due to social media, many female victims of DV/DA, mainly female, and some male victims, do not now report DV/DA if children are present, creating a new class of at risk victims. Historically the provision of DA/DV services by Gender Preference are now in the UK being increasingly seen as counter to both law and public safety policy, but systems change slowly. UK law requires that access to services under public funding do not discriminate as services. Justice is based upon equality before the law and not by gender or other preferences, in particular where this involves children and their welfare. The level of need is now the focus. Many local authorities in the UK are realising that Gendered only services using public funds are unlawful under the Sex Discrimination Act and the Gender Equality Duties and amount to a miss use of public funds if otherwise provided, ipso facto they should/must be provided to those in most need. Analysis of this from an Australian/Tasmanian Perspective is to be explored and assessed in another section. The UK’s Centre for Social Justice’s Beyond Violence report noted, “the ‘patriarchy, power and control’ analysis remains more or less intact despite its incompatibility with emerging findings about domestic abuse.” “Couple relationships characterised by the coercive control of one partner by the other, can lead to the shrinking of victims’ worlds, the crushing of their potential and a depth of trauma.” And this affects all people who are victims. Indeed emerging research from Broken Rainbow, an LBGT abuse charity in the UK, since at least 2009 shows that 50% of all LBGT relationships are abusive and yet policy, practice and services have not caught up in this area either. 17 | P a g e
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 32 33
IS THE STATE A PARTY TO THE ABUSE IN THIS CASE? If the state does not enable the identification of victims and indeed enables victims to be pursued by perpetrators or pursues victims by proxy due to discourse or practices, then the answer is yes. In this case is would appear the case that state parties have been induced to directly abuse by proxy and It cannot be right that state parties become accomplices to and enablers of abuse or proxy abusers and so the imperatives of this report recommendations are that: Report Section 1: Recommended Outcomes REPORT RECOMENDATION: Police & Court & others to: A. Urgently Review and take any appropriate investigative and protective measures regarding the Subject and any related crimes. B. To review recommended implementation of Dual & Retrospective Risk Assessments Policies C. Implement a Gender Free DV approach to this case D. Implement a Gender Free DV approach in all cases As a public safety policy imperatives, AF Continued Interest It is not my role to determine outcomes or investigate further in this case, that is the role of the respective authorities. AF will however be taking keen interest in this and the properly considered outcomes and in addition regarding the recommended implementation of Dual & Retrospective Risk Assessments & Gender Free DV methodologies, as a public safety policy requires.
Paul Randle Jolliffe Chairman Thursday, 16 June 2016
18 | P a g e
ADVOCACY FUND RISK IDENTIFICATION TOOL (AFRIT) QUESTIONNAIRE Name of alleged victim: NAME REDACTED Gender: Male ALL QUESTIONS MUST BE TICKED
Y
N
1
Are there issues around separation/divorce, regardless of timescale?
Y
2
Is the victim (or perpetrator) pregnant/on Period?
N
3
Are there any child contact issues?
Y
4
Is the victim socially isolated? Y Family Violence Order raised on false allegations, distributed by perpetrator to isolate victim / banned from social events (e.g. school) with children
5
Is there emotional abuse present?
Y
6
Is there financial abuse present? Y Perp removed victims business client files, removed victims tools of trade, sold victims car without his knowledge to prevent ability to work
7
Is there extreme jealously present? Y Perp jealous of victims good relationship with daughter and, more recently, of victims new partner
8
Have threats been made to the victim? Y Perp uses lawyer to issue regular threats to intimidate and scare the victim into backing off from family case
9
Has the victim been harassed/stalked? (By the perpetrator or a 3rd party related to Y the perpetrator)
10
Is the victim a repeat victim (known to your agency)?
Y
11
UNREPORTED previous incidents? (If so, how many?) Y Throughout marriage the victim was subjected to coercive control and belittling. These went unreported
1 2 3 4
12 Does the victim have a learning disability and/or mental health issues?
N
13
Does the perpetrator have a learning disability and/or mental health issues? Y Perp has mental health issues and became dependent upon both alcohol and valium during marriage / more recently led to perpetrators loss of employment despite 2 year separation from victim and 2nd marriage to person the perp left victim to be with (affair)
14
Have the incidents escalated on terms of severity and/or frequency?
Y
15
Is the victim unemployed? Y Perp has destroyed victims ability to work both through initial actions (see 6) and later through stress and need to focus on fighting legal issues full time
16
Is the perpetrator unemployed?
Y
17
Does the perpetrator have a history of violence? Has history of slapping daughter up to age 11 whilst still married to victim
Y
18
Has the perpetrator ever been violent to the children? (or made threats of violence Y to children)
19 | P a g e
19
Has the perpetrator ever been violent to pets? (or made threats of violence to pets) There were no family pets
N
20
Has the perpetrator ever self harmed/threatened to self harm and/or threatened Y suicide?
21
Has the perpetrator ever sexually abused the victim or been sexually inappropriate? (including threats)
N
1 2 BACKGROUND TO THE RELATIONSHIP Victim met wife in Jan 2000, married Dec 2000, two children Lily aged 14 & Jesse aged 12, married 12 years before discovery of wife's affairs during 2013, separated in Nov 2013, divorced upon subject’s Application in Mar 2015. When separated children were aged 11 & 9, and subject had been their primary Carer in the 5 years immediately prior to separation. 3 (If applicable include information on injuries to the victim and/or their demeanour) 4
ALL QUESTIONS MUST BE TICKED
Y
N
22
Alcohol present (perpetrator only) History of alcohol abuse by perp
Y
23
Alcohol present (victim only)
N
24
Alcohol present (both)
N
25
Drugs present (perpetrator only) Y History of medication for mental health problems, Valium dependency ‐ more recently leading to loss of perpetrators employment
26
Drugs present (victim only)
N
27
Drugs present (both) Victim and Perpetrator no longer living together
N
28
Is the victim un‐cooperative?
N
29
Does the victim appear afraid? (please note demeanour) Y Victim not in immediate fear of danger Victim is fearful of ongoing legal abuses and use of police / courts as proxy weapon. Victim fearful of repeated false allegations which have included police harassment as a consequence / has incorrectly been held by police for extended periods when clearly (provably) innocent of false allegations of DV. Describes symptoms consistent with ASD (Acute Stress Disorder) / victims GP describes 'startled effect' in him
30
Does the victim feel s/he is at risk? (if yes, give details)
31
Does the victim deny an assault has taken place (when there are signs of an assault)?
N
32
Were children present? (If so where?)
N
33
Did children witness the incident?
N
Y
20 | P a g e
34
Was there damage to the property/belongings?
Y
35
Was there physical violence? Y Perpetrator has history of violence towards children with a focus upon violence towards respective daughter
36
Were the victim and perpetrator violent to each other?
N
37
Was violence used in self defence?
N
38
Did the perpetrator strangle/attempt to strangle or place his/her hands around the victim’s throat?
N
39
Was a pre‐meditated weapon present?
N
40
Was an opportunity weapon present?
N
1 2
WHAT HAPPENDED LEADING UP TO AND DURING THE INCIDENT
The Victim’s wife had been diagnosed with an Eating Disorder, Anorexia and symptoms of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder medicated with Luvox prior to meeting. Suffered from Depression and Anxiety before and during marriage. Hhistory of suicide attempts, including drug overdoses, and suicidal ideation. Multiple hospitalisation a under psychiatrist during marriage. Psychotic episode in 2002, prior to birth of 1st child . Post natal depression with both children. Victim cared for children as main carer. Earlier in marriage, victims wife abused alcohol. Later abused prescription drugs, particularly Valium (Diazapam) and laxatives. The relationship was tolerable e prior to discovery of affairs in 2013, although it came under strain in 2002 and from 2010 due to stressors from the perpetrators dysfunctional family. Upon discussing the issue of Consent Orders, victim's wife made false allegations to Tasmania Police resulting in a Police Family Violence Order being issued on a final basis without the victim being given an opportunity to respond to the false allegations. Since that time subjects wife forced victim out of his home under the order, took and sold subjects tools of trade and vehicle, causing him to suffer financial hardship and he has not been able to work in private practice as a forensic document & handwriting examiner. Perpetrator has alienated victim’s children from victim and obstructed contact with children via a Family Violence Order in Feb 2014 (naming her not children) by having a "do not approach" her condition. A conflict of interest is placed against Victims name as perpetrator starts accessing "Safe at Home" under false pretences and based on false allegations. Victim denied legal aid or accessing the services of the Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania. Perpetrator further restricted contact with children as a result of misleading the Federal Circuit Court of Australia in June 2015. Evidence not permitted to be tested under cross examination at interim hearing in Federal Circuit Court proceedings in June 2015. Victim & Perpetrator are involved in ongoing high conflict proceedings.
3 4 5 6 7 8
21 | P a g e
1
2 3
RISK ASSESSMENT SCORING: Place a cross where answer of ‘yes’ was provided. SIGNIFICANT FACTORS
BREAKDOWN
VIOLENT
1.x
2.
3.x
4.x
5.x
6.x
7.x
8.x
9.x
10.x
11.x
12.
13.x
14.x
15.x
16.x
17.x
18.x
19.
20.x
21.
22.x
23.
24.
25.x
26.
27.
28.
29.x
30.x
31.
32.
33.
34.x
35.x
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
. 22 | P a g e
Level of Risk
Guidance on interventions ( this is not an exhaustive list )
HIGH = 72+
Referral to MARAC (UK Only)
Referral to IDVA to be considered
Multi‐agency work, information sharing and action/safety planning
Sanctuary/target hardening (where it is safe to do so) – security measures, mobile phone etc
Police intervention – arrest and investigate
Legal protection – Specialist Domestic Violence Court (SDVC), family courts.
Refuge, emergency accommodation
Safeguarding interventions – children and adults
Drug and alcohol services, mental health issues
Additional barriers – forced marriage, street sex workers, immigration status.
Multi‐agency work – information shared
Information about services and options
Support – safety planning
Specialist support services from within domestic violence (abuse) sector
Sign posting to specialist support services
Sanctuary – if there is a risk of homelessness
Target hardening
Individual agencies responsive to the client’s needs – housing, children’s services, health, education.
Universal services.
Consider Sanctuary – if there is a risk of homelessness
Leaflets/awareness raising
MEDIUM = 16 ‐ 71
STANDARD = 1‐15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
RA FINAL SCORING Add the total number of ticks for each column and place in the corresponding box below. Then multiply the total number of ticks in each box (e.g. 12 x 3 x 6 = 216) SIGNIFICANT BREAKDOWN VIOLENT TOTAL FACTORS 7 x 4 x 12 = 336 RA Questionnaire Completed by Peter Nicholls Date Thursday 9th June 2016 Agency: Advocacy Fund Australia (Sydney NSW) 23 | P a g e
Lihat lebih banyak...
Comentários
