DOJ Equality Screening Form - Home | Department of Justice



1259648000DOJ Section 75EQUALITY SCREENING FORMTitle of Policy: Domestic Homicide ReviewsRe-screened following public consultationOctober 2018FORM CONTENTSPage NoThe Legal Background3Introduction 3Screening decisions5Screening and good relations duty5Part 1Definition of a Policy6Overview of Policy Proposals6Policy Scoping6Information about the Policy7Implementation Factors10Main stakeholders affected10Other policies with a bearing on this policy11Available evidence12Needs, experiences and priorities51Part 2Screening Questions58Introduction58In favour of ‘none’58In favour of a ‘major’ impact58In favour of a ‘minor’ impact58Screening questions60Additional considerations - Multiple identity63Part 3Screening decision64Timetabling and prioritising65Part 4Monitoring66Part 5Formal record of screening decision67Part 6Approval and authorisation68AnnexA – Screening Flowchart70B – Main Groups identified as relevant to the Section 75 categories71C – Human Rights72The Legal BackgroundUnder section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the Department is required to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity:●between person of different religious belief, political opinion, racial group,age, marital status or sexual orientation;●between men and women generally;●between persons with a disability and persons without; and, ●between persons with dependants and persons without1.Without prejudice to the obligations set out above, the Department is also required to: ● have regard to the desirability of promoting good relations between persons of different religious belief, political opinion or racial group; and● meet legislative obligations under the Disability Discrimination Order.IntroductionThis form should be read in conjunction with the Equality Commission’s revised Section 75 guidance, “Effective Section 75 Equality Assessments: Screening and Equality Assessments” which is available on the Equality Commission’s website. 75 statutory duties apply to internal policies (relating to people who work for department), as well as external policies (relating to those who are, or could be, served by the department).The purpose of screening is to identify those policies that are likely to have an impact on equality of opportunity and/or good relations and so determine whether an Equality Impact Assessment (EQIA) is necessary. Screening should be introduced at an early stage when developing or reviewing a policy. 1A list of the main groups identified as being relevant to each of the section 75 categories is at Annex B of the document.3.The lead role in the screening of a policy should be taken by the policy decision-maker who has the authority to make changes to that policy and should involve, in the screening process:other relevant team members;those who implement the policy;staff members from other relevant work areas; and key stakeholders. A flowchart which outlines the screening process is provided at Annex A. 4.The first step in the screening exercise is to gather evidence to inform the screening decisions. Relevant data may be either quantitative or qualitative or both (this helps to indicate whether or not there are likely equality of opportunity and/or good relations impacts associated with a policy). Relevant information will help to clearly demonstrate the reasons for a policy being either ‘screened in’ for an equality impact assessment or ‘screened out’ from an equality impact assessment. 5.The absence of evidence does not indicate that there is no likely impact but if none is available, it may be appropriate to consider subjecting the policy to an EQIA.6.Where data/evidence gaps exist consider engaging with the main representative groups directly, for example Disability Action, Rainbow, and NICCY to find out what you need to know. Bring stakeholders together to discuss policy or link up with other UK bodies who may have similar policies.7.Screening provides an assessment of the likely impact, whether ‘minor’ or ‘major’, of its policy on equality of opportunity and/or good relations for the relevant categories. In some instances, screening may identify the likely impact is none. 8.Contact EqualityandStaffSupportServices@justice-ni.x..uk at any stage of the process for support or guidance.Screening decisions pletion of screening should lead to one of the following three outcomes. The policy has been: ‘screened in’ for equality impact assessment; ‘screened out’ with mitigation or an alternative policy proposed to be adopted; or‘screened out’ without mitigation or an alternative policy proposed to be adopted. Screening and good relations duty 9.The Commission recommends that a policy is ‘screened in’ for equality impact assessment if the likely impact on good relations is ‘major’. While there is no legislative requirement to engage in an equality impact assessment in respect of good relations, this does not necessarily mean that equality impact assessments are inappropriate in this context. Part 1Definition of PolicyThere have been some difficulties in defining what constitutes a policy in the context of section 75. To be on the safe side it is recommended that you consider any new initiatives, proposals, schemes or programmes as policies or changes to those already in existence. It is important to remember that even if a full EQIA has been carried out in an “overarching” policy or strategy, it will still be necessary for the policy maker to consider if further screening or an EQIA needs to be carried out in respect of those policies cascading from the overarching strategy.Overview of Policy ProposalsThe aims and objectives of the policy must be clear and terms of reference well defined. You must take into account any available data that will enable you to come to a decision on whether or not a policy may or may not have a differential impact on any of the s75 categories.Policy Scoping10.The first stage of the screening process involves scoping the policy under consideration. The purpose of policy scoping is to help prepare the background and context and set out the aims and objectives for the policy, being screened. At this stage, scoping the policy will help identify potential constraints as well as opportunities and will help the policy maker work through the screening process on a step by step basis.Part 1: Policy Scoping11. Information about the policyName of the Policy/ decision to be screenedDomestic Homicide Reviews (DHRs)Is this an existing, revised or a new policy / decision?This would be a new policy in Northern Ireland as there’s currently no specific review process for cases of adult homicide that has resulted from domestic violence and abuse by a partner/former partner, family member or member of the same household. DHRs have been in place in England and Wales since 2011 (provided for under section 9 of the Domestic, Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004). To introduce DHRs in Northern Ireland (NI) we intend to commence the appropriate provisions within the 2004 Act here.What is it trying to achieve? (intended aims/outcomes)The scope of the legislationThe primary legislation provides for a review of the circumstances in which the death of a person aged 16 or over has, or appears to have, resulted from violence or abuse or neglect by: a person that they were related to (familial relationship);a person with whom they were, or had been, in an intimate personal relationship (this would cover both current and a past relationship at the time of death); or a member of the same householdwith a view to identifying lessons to be learned from the death. Key aims of the DHR process:Review the way in which local professionals and organisations that came into contact with the victim work individually and together to safeguard victims;Review the way in which local professionals and organisations that came into contact with the perpetrator work individually and together to tackle harmful behaviour and safeguard victims;Seek out opportunities for learning regarding the way in which local professionals and organisations work individually, and together, to safeguard victims and address offending behaviour; Identify clearly the lessons that are to be learned and the actions that are needed to change practice as a result, how and within what timescales this will be progressed, what is expected to change as a result (this will include early learning that may be implemented ahead of a DHR formally concluding and being reported on) and how this will be measured. This relates to learning both within and between organisations and agencies; Apply identified lessons to service responses, including changes to policies and procedures as appropriate; Prevent domestic violence and homicides and improve service responses for all domestic violence and abuse victims through improved working (including strengthened partnership working) and ensure that domestic abuse is identified and responded to effectively at the earliest opportunity; Contribute to a better understanding of the nature of domestic violence and abuse; and Highlight good practice.The purpose of a DHRUltimately the purpose of the review will be to shed light on the past in order that the future is safer for those that are subject to domestic violence and abuse. The DHR is not about: how the victim died;who was responsible for the death; attributing blame – rather the focus is very much on seeking out opportunities for learning and proposing, where appropriate, how service procedures, provision and delivery may be improved; ordisciplinary action.It is considered that the focus of the review process should include (but not be limited to):seeking out and capturing early and ongoing learning; identifying what lessons, if any, are to be learned (this might be for individual organisations, a range of organisations and/or how the organisations work separately and together);helping us to better understand domestic violence and abuse;recognising where and what immediate and longer term action is needed as a result of the DHR; andhaving a clear outcome, for example, a succinct report that focuses primarily on good practice, lessons learned and what needs to be changed.Through the lessons learned/actions in the review report and the outcome/organisational response associated with the review’s findings the review process should ensure that:organisations identify when and how action will be taken;organisations outline what changes will be made and how they’ll be measured;organisations do change how they work as a direct result;lessons learned are shared and practice changed regionally (across Northern Ireland); good practice is regionally promoted and shared; andthe future is made safer for those that are subject to domestic violence and abuse. Prevalence of Domestic Violence and Abuse and Domestic Homicide hereThere were 29,166 domestic abuse incidents recorded in 2016/17, the highest level recorded since the data series began in 2004/05 (39.2 per cent higher than the level of 20,959 recorded at the start of the data series in 2004/05). While the level of 13,933 domestic abuse crimes recorded in 2016/17 was slightly lower than that recorded during the previous year, it was the second highest level seen since 2004/05 (44.4 per cent higher than 2004/05 and represented fourteen per cent of all crimes recorded in that financial year). From 2004-2017 Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) have recorded 74 domestic motivated homicides in Northern Ireland, an average of 6 a year. Source: Trends in Domestic Abuse Incidents and Crimes Recorded by the Police in Northern Ireland 2004/05 to 2016/17 - Annual Bulletin published 12 January 2018, PSNI.Are there any Section 75 categories which might be expected to benefit from the intended policy? If so, explain how.All Section 75 categories are expected to benefit from this policy, in particular women generally. This is because a proportionately high percentage (69%) of victims of domestic violence and abuse recorded crime in 2016/17, as in all other years, are women. The policy will however benefit all victims of domestic violence and abuse. Further relevant information is included under ‘Available Evidence’.Where evidence/information is available for Northern Ireland it has been provided. Information from elsewhere in the UK has also been provided under ‘Available Evidence’ where it has been considered appropriate.Who initiated or wrote the policy?The policy and associated documentation has been drafted by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and a task and finish group specifically established to develop an appropriate model for DHRs in Northern Ireland. The group’s membership is drawn from relevant partner organisations across the sectors. Membership includes officials from DOJ, the Department of Health, the Health and Social Care Board, the South Eastern Domestic and Sexual Violence Partnership, the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Probation Board for Northern Ireland, Women’s Aid Federation, Men’s Advisory Project and Victim Support NI.The policy has been informed by the DHR process in England and Wales, as well as guidance material, learning and key findings associated with that process. It has also been informed by other review processes. The need for the policy has been identified by key stakeholders including respondents to the Stopping Domestic and Sexual Violence and Abuse Strategy consultation.The policy was amended to take into consideration views raised during a public consultation. The public consultation ran from 4 July 2018 to 28 September 2018. We received 35 responses and one relating exclusively to the equality screening document. Officials also met with four groups to provide further information on the proposed DHR model. Who owns and who implements the policy?This policy is owned by DOJ however it will have implications for, and be implemented by, other named partners including PSNI, Probation Board for Northern Ireland (PBNI), Public Prosecution Service (PPS), the Health and Social Care Board (HSCB), all the Health and Social Care Trusts (HSCTs), and relevant service providers in the voluntary and community sector. An independent DHR Chair (or Chairs) will also have a vital role in implementing the DHR process in Northern Ireland.12. Implementation factorsAre there any factors which could contribute to/detract from the intended aim/outcome of the policy/decision?If yes, are theyTick Box?financial?legislative?other, please specify - Partnership working13. Main stakeholders affectedWho are the internal and external stakeholders (actual or potential) that the policy will impact upon? Tick Box?staff?service users?other public sector organisations?voluntary/community/trade unions?other, please specify1 – Families of victims of domestic homicide2 – Individuals directly affected by the domestic homicide outside of the victim’s family2 - Everyone who has been/will be affected by Domestic Violence and Abuse 3 – The General PublicLike the remainder of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland has significant crime levels relating to Domestic Violence and Abuse, as evidenced previously. These policies will impact on staff within DOJ and relevant agencies and organisations, named previously.Service Users would be potential victims/victims and survivors of Domestic Violence and Abuse. For the policy to be successfully implemented assistance may be required from key stakeholders in all sectors. This will impact on the voluntary and community sectors. As Domestic Violence and Abuse can affect anyone we consider that the policy would therefore impact the general public and everyone affected by Domestic Violence and Abuse in Northern Ireland. Particularly as the outcome of the DHR process may inform regional policy and practice.14. Other policies with a bearing on this policy what are they?There are a range of policies, strategies and legislation that have a bearing on these policies, these include:Stopping Domestic and Sexual Violence and Abuse in Northern Ireland StrategyInternational, European, national and regional legislation, strategies, policies, and guidelines regarding and relevant to domestic violence and abuse, e.g.:International Human Rights Standards and Obligations2010 Council Conclusions on the Eradication of Violence against Women in the European UnionBeijing Declaration and Platform for Action (UN Commission on Status of Women CSW) 1995Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women; and Local policies and practice.‘Making a difference to victims and witnesses of crime - Improving access to justice, services and support - a five-year StrategyVictim Charter (Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2015) Order (Northern Ireland)Strategic Outcomes for Policing 2016-20Policing with the Community 2020 Strategywho owns them?Some are owned by DOJ whilst others are jointly owned with the Department of Health (DoH). The latter documents are owned by the Policing Board and the PSNI respectively. In relation to the wider context this includes the Home Office, the Council of the European Union, the Commission on the Status of Women and the UN General Assembly.15. Available EvidenceEvidence to help inform the screening process may take many forms. Set out all evidence /data (both *qualitative and quantitative) below along with details of the different groups you have met and / or consulted with to help inform your screening assessment. Specify details for each of the Section 75 categories.A public consultation ran from 4 July 2018 to 28 September 2018. This section has been updated to include evidence provided by respondents in relation to each Section 75 category. Additions are highlighted in red. We have also inserted sub-titles to assist the reader. Section 75 CategoryDetails of evidence/informationReligious beliefThere is limited data available in Northern Ireland on domestic violence and abuse/domestic homicide in relation to religious belief. Evidence collated for the development of the Stopping Domestic and Sexual Violence and Abuse Strategy, and associated policies and information gained from stakeholders, indicates that domestic violence and abuse/domestic homicide are not confined to any one religious belief. This is supported by evidence gathered in other jurisdictions including within the United Kingdom (UK), some of which is outlined below.Evidence from England and WalesHome Office The extract below from the Domestic Homicide Reviews – Full Equality Impact Assessment (Home Office, March 2011) highlights that in circumstances where domestic violence and abuse/domestic homicide has been as a result of ‘honour’ it is inherently difficult to capture.Relevant extracts below:Domestic violence and homicide cuts across geographical, religious, ethnic and national boundaries. Certain types of violence do disproportionately impact women from some communities, and these have been listed and outlined under Race.In relation to domestic homicide:In 2004/05 there were a total of 146 domestic homicides (106 females, 40 males);In 2005/06 and 2006/07 there were 110 domestic homicides in each of those years (88 females, 22 males; and 83 females and 27 males respectively). In 2008/09, a greater proportion of female victims were killed by their partner, ex-partner or lover; a total of 101 of the 132 victims of domestic homicides were female and 31 of the 132 victims were male.Latest published figures for 2009/10 show that just over half of female victims of homicide aged 16 or over had been killed by their partner, ex-partner or lover (54%, 94 offences). In contrast, only five per cent of male victims aged 16 or over were killed by their partner, ex-partner or lover in 2009/10 (21 offences)4.It should be noted that the above figures may not accurately reflect the actual number of domestic homicides. In particular, where a victim has died following a forced marriage, families and communities may not admit to the context in which the offence occurred and as a result it may not be recorded as a domestic homicide.‘Honour’-based violence and Honour’ killings:Between December 08 and April 10 the Metropolitan Police recorded 228 Honour Based Violence Offences including: Assault with Injury, harassment, common assault, GBH and murder.In 2004, the Metropolitan Police decided to re-open 114 murder cases from the previous decade, which they now think may be so-called ‘honour’ killings. While there are no published statistics of honour-related violence, it is thought that there are around 12 honour-related killings annually.Multi-agency Statutory Guidance for the Conduct of Domestic Homicide Reviews, December 2016, published by the Home Office highlights:35. The review panel should bear in mind equality and diversity issues at all times and comply with the requirements of the Public Sector Equality Act duties. Age, disability (including learning disabilities), gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion and belief, ethnicity, sex and sexual orientation may all have a bearing on how the review is explained and conducted, and how the outcomes are disseminated to local communities. It goes on to outline that equality and diversity issues should be considering throughout the review process, from scoping to analysis:f)Are there any specific considerations around equality and diversity issues such as age, disability (including learning disabilities), gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion and belief, sex and sexual orientation that may require special consideration? Were procedures sensitive to the ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious identity of the victim, the perpetrator and their families? Was consideration for vulnerability and disability necessary? Were any of the other protected characteristics relevant in this case? Northern Ireland – ConsultationRespondents noted that the DHR process should have due regard to equality and diversity issues in relation to persons of different religious beliefs. One respondent highlighted that different ethnic communities may have different “cultural norms” around domestic violence. They considered that it was important to identify the cultural context in each case. We considered this had relevance to this characteristic/category. Respondents raised further points which are noted under Racial Group, but which may also be applicable to Religious Belief.OutcomeAs we anticipate that the policies will apply, and be accessible, equally to all groups/individuals we do not consider that there is evidence to indicate that this category will be adversely affected. The policy will need to recognise and respond appropriately to domestic homicide cases where religious belief may require special consideration. For example an expert may be required to sit on, or provide evidence to, the panel. This issue is explored further under Racial Group. Guidance and practice will be developed in line with this.Political opinionWhile there is little data available, evidence collated for the development of the Stopping Domestic and Sexual Violence and Abuse Strategy, and associated policies and information gained from stakeholders, indicates that domestic violence/abuse and domestic homicide in Northern Ireland is not confined to any one political opinion.Northern Ireland – ConsultationRespondents to the consultation agreed that the protected characteristics under equality legislation should be taken into consideration during the course of the DHR.OutcomeAs we anticipate that the policies will apply, and be accessible, equally to all groups/individuals we do not consider there is evidence to indicate that this category will be adversely affected. The policy will need to recognise and respond appropriately to domestic homicide cases where equality and diversity issues may require special consideration. We would envisage that this should relate to all Section 75 categories, including political opinion. As mentioned previously guidance and practice will be developed in line with this.Racial groupThere is some data available in Northern Ireland on domestic violence and abuse/domestic homicide in relation to racial group. Evidence collated for the development of the draft Stopping Domestic and Sexual Violence and Abuse Strategy, and associated policies and information gained from stakeholders, indicates that domestic violence/abuse and domestic homicide are not confined to any one racial group. Further information is provided below.Evidence from Northern IrelandPolice Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) recorded crimeSource: PSNI - Financial year trends in domestic abuse – statistical bulletin for 2016/17 – summary tables – available at: [Accessed 18 October 2018]Evidence is also available from the Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conferences (MARACs) MARAC Trends and Statistics 2016 management report April 2017Relevant extract below:Of the 10,752 high risk cases discussed to date at MARACs four hundred and ninety six cases (4.6%) involved victims from the Black and Minority Ethnic communities (BME). MARAC Statistics – December 2017CriteriaMonthTotalCumulativeTotalFrom Jan 20172016 TotalsCumulativeTotalFrom Jan 2010Number ofCases Discussed1261429133612181Repeat Cases353443152771Children in Household1501767172315709Victim profileS75 groupingBME cases128657582Female118555Male11224 Hour Domestic & Sexual Violence HelplineIt should be noted that many individuals do not wish to report to the PSNI or engage with a MARAC. Some may contact the voluntary and community sector. There is therefore evidence in this section on the S75 breakdown (where available) of individuals contacting the Government 24 Hour Domestic and Sexual Violence Helpline which is managed by Women’s Aid Northern Ireland.Women’s Aid Federation Northern Ireland - 24 Hour Domestic & Sexual Violence Helpline – Year End Report April 2017 – March 2018 Relevant extracts below:In 2017/18 a total number of 26,477 calls were managed by the Helpline. A total number of 16,988 calls were answered during the year.Calls from BME Women and Traveller Women: 316 calls were received during the last year from this group. These women can access our Language Line service if required and it is encouraging that so many women continue to access our service when English is not their first language.Research - Black and Minority Ethnic Women’s experiencesAn analysis into Black and Minority Ethnic Women’s experiences in Northern Ireland considered there are structural failings leading to financial dependence on abusive partners and no recourse to public funds, citing the following barriers:Dependence of some BME women on male partners for their immigration status and/or official leave to remain in the UK;Lack of knowledge of their own legal entitlements in the UK;Reluctance to involve Social Services due to fear of children being removed; Reluctance to seek help from public authorities or ‘outside’ support agencies due to lack of culturally sensitive services;Community pressure to remain in the family home and the stigma and shame attached to leaving the partner;Internalising religion and cultural beliefs that view domestic violence as permissible rather than criminal; andA legacy of poor police response from previous experience in their home country, and on occasion, in Northern Ireland.Source: Monica McWilliams and Priyamvada Yarnell (June 2013) The Protection and Rights of Black and Minority Ethnic Women Experiencing Domestic Violence in Northern Ireland, NICEM, Available at: [Accessed 18 October 2018]Evidence from England and WalesHome OfficeA range of evidence and commentary from the Home Office is also captured throughout this section. Primarily relating to their Equality impact assessment of DHRs in 2011 and key findings from an analysis of DHRs in December 2016.Domestic Homicide Reviews – Full Equality Impact Assessment, Home Office, March 2011.Relevant extract below:Victims of domestic violence from a black, minority-ethnic (BME) background may find it more difficult to leave an abusive situation due to cultural beliefs or a lack of appropriate services.Forced marriages, female genital mutilation (FGM) and so called ‘honour’-based violence (HBV) are more likely to be prevalent in (although are not limited to) certain communities, including BME communities, although the data we have on these crimes is limited.Careful consideration must be given to individuals selected for the review process to provide specialist cultural knowledge, as there may be issues of confidentiality with regards to using individuals from local communities.[Note – Extracts below also referenced under Religious belief section above]In relation to domestic homicide:In 2004/05 there were a total of 146 domestic homicides (106 females, 40 males);In 2005/06 and 2006/07 there were 110 domestic homicides in each of those years (88 females, 22 males; and 83 females and 27 males respectively). In 2008/09, a greater proportion of female victims were killed by their partner, ex-partner or lover; a total of 101 of the 132 victims of domestic homicides were female and 31 of the 132 victims were male.Latest published figures for 2009/10 show that just over half of female victims of homicide aged 16 or over had been killed by their partner, ex-partner or lover (54%, 94 offences). In contrast, only five per cent of male victims aged 16 or over were killed by their partner, ex-partner or lover in 2009/10 (21 offences)4.It should be noted that the above figures may not accurately reflect the actual number of domestic homicides. In particular, where a victim has died following a forced marriage, families and communities may not admit to the context in which the offence occurred and as a result it may not be recorded as a domestic homicide.‘Honour’-based violence and Honour’ killings:Between December 08 and April 10 the Metropolitan Police recorded 228 Honour Based Violence Offences including: Assault with Injury, harassment, common assault, GBH and murder.In 2004, the Metropolitan Police decided to re-open 114 murder cases from the previous decade, which they now think may be so-called ‘honour’ killings. While there are no published statistics of honour-related violence, it is thought that there are around 12 honour-related killings annually.Further extract below:2.3 Please list the specific equality issues and data gaps that may need tobe addressed through consultation and/or further research?Cultural and language barriers in some communities were considered to have an impact on some groups’ willingness to share information e.g. Gypsy & Traveller groups, victims of honour killings. This may be a significant factor when attempting to gather information in such cases. In these situations there is often wider collusion in the abuse from extended family, and the community as a whole are less likely to disclose, or be honest, about the circumstances of the death. There was also concern about those individuals who may have a fear of deportation.The statutory guidance directs review panels to involve individuals across a broad spectrum of both statutory and voluntary agencies and ensuring that ‘experts’ in particular fields are included in the review process as appropriate.At all times in the review process, qualified interpreters should be used rather than other family members or individuals from local community. This will help to maintain confidentiality which is essential in such cases. Experts with experience in handling such cases should also be involved.It was identified that where information/review findings were published, this needed to be made available in a variety of formats, for example: large print, Braille, different languages, audio and internet. It was also high-lighted that some ethic groups/communities have their own media/methods of communicating, and that this may lead to messages from the review being misinterpreted.The statutory guidance makes clear that where appropriate, consideration should also be given to translating the report into different languages and other formats, such as Braille, British Sign Language. Partners in statutory services have raised concerns about whether the statutory guidance will be able to reach the front-line practitioners that do not currently engage in DHRs, rather than simply reinforcing the knowledge of those already aware of the issue.To ensure the guidance does reach the right audience, a launch and communications plan was developed in conjunction with corporate partners.The Quality Assurance Group will request feedback (where appropriate) once a review has been completed to determine how individuals felt about the process and their involvement within it. Outcomes of the reviews will also be monitored. This will consist of monitoring by ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation etc. in order to ensure that different groups are not experiencing differential outcomes.4.1 Assessment of the impactDomestic violence and homicide occurs across society, regardless of age, gender, race, sexuality, wealth, and geography. Therefore, in a number of cases, there will be issues relating to equality and diversity. There will also be times where violence and homicide may be preventable.The statutory guidance for conducting DHRs seeks to take account of issues of diversity that need to be borne in mind when DHR is taking place. Specific examples of this may include:Careful consideration to be given to who is selected to provide specialist cultural knowledge during the course of a review, as there may be issues of confidentiality with regards to using individuals from local communities. This should apply in instances such as when an interpreter is used.Key findings from analysis of Domestic Homicide Reviews, Home Office, December 2016Relevant extracts below:Domestic homicide victims - Ethnicity 16. Ethnicity of the victim and perpetrator was often missing from the DHRs sampled and it has not, therefore, been possible to capture this data from reports. As a result, the revised statutory guidance on conducting DHRs will invite report authors to record key information of the parties involved, such as age, gender, ethnicity and other characteristics. Multi-agency Statutory Guidance for the Conduct of Domestic Homicide Reviews, December 2016, Home Office Relevant extracts below:35. The review panel should bear in mind equality and diversity issues at all times and comply with the requirements of the Public Sector Equality Act duties. Age, disability (including learning disabilities), gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion and belief, ethnicity, sex and sexual orientation may all have a bearing on how the review is explained and conducted, and how the outcomes are disseminated to local communities. f)Are there any specific considerations around equality and diversity issues such as age, disability (including learning disabilities), gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion and belief, sex and sexual orientation that may require special consideration? Were procedures sensitive to the ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious identity of the victim, the perpetrator and their families? Was consideration for vulnerability and disability necessary? Were any of the other protected characteristics relevant in this case? Northern Ireland ConsultationRespondents considered that in cases where victims are foreign nationals or not “indigenous”, their cultural context should be examined. As the Women’s Regional Consortium highlighted, “there are different cultural norms around domestic violence in some other countries and this may be a useful consideration in the behaviours of others.” In developing their consultation response, the Women’s Regional Consortium carried out a consultation exercise with members. One participant noted that “we had a young client from Poland who had got married and was suffering domestic abuse. Her family were not supportive of her leaving her husband taking the view that she is married and she has to accept whatever happens in the marriage.” Some respondents also considered that experts may be needed to assist understanding of the specific cultural context of the case and that translation services might also be required.A number of respondents felt that if the victim was a foreign national, it would be prudent to examine whether the policies and procedures in place would have informed and assured the victim that there was support available for them, and that service pathways were fit for purpose in overcoming any additional barriers that those victims faced.It was also suggested that the immigration status of a victim or perpetrator should be considered. OutcomeAs we anticipate that the policies will apply, and be accessible, equally to all groups/individuals we do not consider there is evidence to indicate that this category will be adversely affected.The DHR process and panel will need to recognise and respond appropriately to domestic homicide cases where equality and diversity issues, including racial group, may require special consideration. As mentioned previously guidance and practice will be developed in line with this.AgeThere is some data available in Northern Ireland with regard to domestic violence and abuse/domestic homicide and age. Evidence collated indicates that domestic violence/abuse and domestic homicide are not confined to any particular age group. Evidence from Northern IrelandPSNI dataSource: PSNI - Financial year trends in domestic abuse – statistical bulletin for 2016/17 – summary tables – available at: ’s Aid Federation Northern Ireland - 24 Hour Domestic & Sexual Violence Helpline – Year End Report April 2017 – March 2018Relevant extracts below:In 2017/18 a total number of 26,477 calls were managed by the Helpline. A total number of 16,988 calls were answered during the year.MARAC Statistics – December 2017CriteriaMonthTotalCumulativeTotalFrom Jan 20172016 TotalsCumulativeTotalFrom Jan 2010Cases Discussed1261429133612181Repeat Cases353443152771Children in Household1501767172315709 Northern Ireland Crime SurveyThe Northern Ireland Crime Survey (NICS) 2015/16 estimates that ’12.1% of people aged 16-64 have experienced at least one form of domestic violence, by a partner, since age 16, with women (15.1%) displaying a higher prevalence rate than men (8.4%).’The Survey went on to highlight that 6.4% of people aged 16-64 have experienced at least one form of domestic violence and abuse, by a family member (other than a partner), since age 16, with women (7.5%) displaying a higher prevalence rate than men (5.0%).Evidence from England and WalesHome OfficeDomestic Homicide Reviews – Full Equality Impact Assessment, Home Office, March 2011.Relevant extract below:The British Crime Survey reports that the risk of domestic abuse was higher for females in younger age groups. Females aged between 16 and 24 were at a higher risk of domestic abuse.4.1 Assessment of the impactDomestic violence and homicide occurs across society, regardless of age, gender, race, sexuality, wealth, and geography. Therefore, in a number of cases, there will be issues relating to equality and diversity. There will also be times where violence and homicide may be preventable.Key findings from analysis of Domestic Homicide Reviews, Home Office, December 2016Extracts:In 2014/15 there were 50 male and 107 female domestic homicide victims (which includes intimate partner homicides and familial homicides) aged 16 and over. Among both men and women the highest proportion of domestic homicides was among those aged 30 to 50 (around two-fifths). Of the 33 intimate partner homicides considered as part of this analysis, just under half (15 cases) included dependent children in the family structure. 15. Table A1 shows the age and gender of the principal suspect in domestic homicide cases. The majority (87% for combined years 2010/11 to 2014/15) were male and nearly one half were aged between 30 and 50 years old. 25. The most common age group for perpetrators of intimate partner homicide in the DHRs analysed was 51-60 years of age (8). This was followed by the 21-30 age group (7). For victims, the two most common age groups were 21-30 and 31-40 (both n=7) Table 1. Annex A: Analysis of Homicide Index – Additional TableMulti-agency Statutory Guidance for the Conduct of Domestic Homicide Reviews, December 2016, Home Office Relevant extracts below:35. The review panel should bear in mind equality and diversity issues at all times and comply with the requirements of the Public Sector Equality Act duties. Age, disability (including learning disabilities), gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion and belief, ethnicity, sex and sexual orientation may all have a bearing on how the review is explained and conducted, and how the outcomes are disseminated to local communities. f)Are there any specific considerations around equality and diversity issues such as age, disability (including learning disabilities), gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion and belief, sex and sexual orientation that may require special consideration? Were procedures sensitive to the ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious identity of the victim, the perpetrator and their families? Was consideration for vulnerability and disability necessary? Were any of the other protected characteristics relevant in this case? Northern Ireland ConsultationRespondents considered that the DHR process should have due regard to equality and diversity issues in relation to persons of different age. Barnardo’s also suggested that “care experiences”, particularly of young people, should be given special consideration. OutcomeAs we anticipate that the policies will apply, and be accessible, equally to all groups/individuals we do not consider there is evidence to indicate that this category will be adversely affected.As the legislation (2004 Act) applies to a domestic homicide of those aged 16 or over, the homicide of those under the age of 16 sits outside of this DHR process. We have engaged with the DoH, as well as members of the DHR task and finish group, and are assured that these homicides will be handled within the child safeguarding framework and lessons will be learned through the serious case review/case management review process. As outlined in the consultation a SCR/CMR may also be more appropriate for victims aged 16/17, dependent on the individual circumstances of the case. However, as noted in the consultation paper, lessons will be captured in relation to the domestic violence and abuse aspect of the case. This may be achieved, for example, by the DHR Chair or a panel member sitting on the alternate review process or liaising with that review. This will be managed on a case by case basis.As noted, the policy will need to recognise and respond appropriately to domestic homicide cases where equality and diversity issues may require special consideration. As mentioned previously guidance and practice will be in line with this.Marital statusThere is limited data available in Northern Ireland with regard to domestic violence and abuse/domestic homicide and marital status, particularly as data on relationship is often categorised as a spouse and/or partner. Evidence collated for the development of the Stopping Domestic and Sexual Violence and Abuse Strategy, and associated policies and information gained from stakeholders, indicates that domestic violence/abuse and domestic homicide are not confined to a particular marital status.Evidence from Northern IrelandPSNI dataSource: PSNI - Financial year trends in domestic abuse – statistical bulletin for 2016/17 – summary tables – available at: [Accessed 18 October 2018]MARAC Trends and Statistics 2016 management report April 2017, Relevant extracts below:Case RelationshipsIn 2016 there were 1,336 high risk cases heard at MARAC. In some cases there was more than one victim or perpetrator identified. Current relationships163322033909000The highest relationship category for female victims is that of partner (190), followed by husband (154), boyfriend (106) and same sex relationship (3) as illustrated in fig. 6. Relationships where the alleged perpetrator is a partner or husband account for 76% of female case relationships. Fig.6 Female Victim – Current Relationship 2016Partners are counted as living together as if married and the number of these relationships remains higher than husband and wife. 231203512001500For male victims in current relationships over one-third (16) of the cases recorded show their female partner was their abuser, the remaining were wives (5) and male partners (3). Partners are counted Fig. 7 Male Victim – Current Relationship 2016as living together as if married. This is illustrated in fig. 7.Evidence from England and WalesHome OfficeKey findings from analysis of Domestic Homicide Reviews, Home Office, December 2016Relevant extracts below:In 2014/15 there were 50 male and 107 female domestic homicide victims (which includes intimate partner homicides and familial homicides) aged 16 and over. Among women, the majority of domestic homicide victims were killed by a partner / ex-partner. Of the 33 intimate partner homicides considered as part of this analysis, just under half (15 cases) included dependent children in the family structure. In 24 of the 33 intimate partner homicides, the perpetrator had a history of violence. In six cases the victim had a history of violence towards the perpetrator. Domestic Homicide Reviews – Full Equality Impact Assessment, Home Office, March 2011.Relevant extracts below:In 2004/05 there were a total of 146 domestic homicides (106 females, 40 males);In 2005/06 and 2006/07 there were 110 domestic homicides in each of those years (88 females, 22 males; and 83 females and 27 males respectively). In 2008/09, a greater proportion of female victims were killed by their partner, ex-partner or lover; a total of 101 of the 132 victims of domestic homicides were female and 31 of the 132 victims were male.Latest published figures for 2009/10 show that just over half of female victims of homicide aged 16 or over had been killed by their partner, ex-partner or lover (54%, 94 offences). In contrast, only five per cent of male victims aged 16 or over were killed by their partner, ex-partner or lover in 2009/10 (21 offences)4.It should be noted that the above figures may not accurately reflect the actual number of domestic homicides. In particular, where a victim has died following a forced marriage, families and communities may not admit to the context in which the offence occurred and as a result it may not be recorded as a domestic homicide.Other risk indicators for domestic violence:Marital status: People who were separated, divorced or widowed may have higher odds of being victim of domestic abuse and stalking compared with all other marital status groups. It is important to note that this link does not imply causation.Multi-agency Statutory Guidance for the Conduct of Domestic Homicide Reviews, December 2016, Home Office Relevant extracts below:35. The review panel should bear in mind equality and diversity issues at all times and comply with the requirements of the Public Sector Equality Act duties. Age, disability (including learning disabilities), gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion and belief, ethnicity, sex and sexual orientation may all have a bearing on how the review is explained and conducted, and how the outcomes are disseminated to local communities. f)Are there any specific considerations around equality and diversity issues such as age, disability (including learning disabilities), gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion and belief, sex and sexual orientation that may require special consideration? Were procedures sensitive to the ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious identity of the victim, the perpetrator and their families? Was consideration for vulnerability and disability necessary? Were any of the other protected characteristics relevant in this case? ResearchResearch and analysis has recognised patterns and factors that are of particular note in relation to domestic violence and abuse, for example Lees, S (2000), ‘Marital rape and marital murder’ highlights that victims of domestic violence and abuse are at greatest risk of homicide at the point of separation or after leaving a violent partner. Northern Ireland – ConsultationRespondents to the consultation agreed that anyone who falls into one of the protected characteristics under equality legislation should have that characteristic taken into consideration during the course of the DHR. This would include marital status.OutcomeAs we anticipate that the policies will apply, and be accessible, equally to all groups/individuals we do not consider there is evidence to indicate that this category will be adversely affected. The policy will need to recognise and respond appropriately to domestic homicide cases where equality and diversity issues, including marital status/civil partnership etc., may require special consideration. As mentioned previously guidance and practice will be developed in line with this.Sexual orientationThere is some data available in Northern Ireland with regard to domestic violence and abuse/domestic homicide and sexual orientation. Evidence collated for the development of the Stopping Domestic and Sexual Violence and Abuse Strategy, and associated policies and information gained from stakeholders, indicates that domestic violence/abuse and domestic homicide are not confined to a particular sexual orientation. Evidence from Northern IrelandMARAC Trends and Statistics 2016 management report April 2017, Relevant extracts below:Of the 10,752 high risk cases discussed to date at MARACs 49 victims (0.46%) were from the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities (LGBT). The statistics for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities show a reduction of 0.04% respectively.Case RelationshipsIn 2016 there were 1,336 high risk cases heard at MARAC. In some cases there was more than one victim or perpetrator identified. Current relationshipsThe highest relationship category for female victims is that of partner (190), followed by husband (154), boyfriend (106) and same sex relationship (3) as illustrated in fig. 6. Relationships where the alleged perpetrator is a partner or husband account for 76% of female case relationships. Partners are counted as living together as if married and the number of these relationships remains higher than husband and wife. For male victims in current relationships over one-third (16) of the cases recorded show their female partner was their abuser, the remaining were wives (5) and male partners (3). Partners are counted as living together as if married. This is illustrated in fig. 7.31759779000Fig.6 Female Victim – Current Relationship 2016 Fig. 7 Male Victim – Current Relationship 2016Former RelationshipsAs research informs, the largest numbers of victims of domestic abuse are those from former relationships. In 2016 this remains the case. Females who were victims of former spouses, ex-partners or ex-boyfriends account for 690 relationships 54.5% of all female relationships. Of these cases 419 (61%) were abused by ex-partners, 165 (24%) were abused by ex-boyfriends and 106 (15%) abused by their spouse from whom they are either separated or divorced and the remaining (fig. 8).Fig 8. Female Victim – Former Relationship 2016Males who were victims of former spouses, ex-partners, ex-girlfriends or ex-boyfriends account for 13 cases, 16.9% of all male relationships. Of these cases 77% (10) were abused by female ex-partners, 23% (3) abused by their former male partner (fig. 9). Fig. 9 Male Victim – Former Relationship 2016MARAC Statistics – December 2017CriteriaMonthTotalCumulativeTotalFrom Jan 20172016 TotalsCumulativeTotalFrom Jan 2010Cases Discussed1261429133612181Repeat Cases353443152771Children in Household1501767172315709LGBT cases14753Lesbian025Gay022Bisexual female000Bisexual male000Women’s Aid Federation Northern Ireland - 24 Hour Domestic & Sexual Violence Helpline – Year End Report April 2017 – March 2018Relevant extracts below:In 2017/18 a total number of 26,477 calls were managed by the Helpline. A total number of 16,988 calls were answered during the year.Calls from the LGB&T Community:A total of 66 calls were received.Northern Ireland ConsultationRespondents agreed that the DHR process should have due regard to equality and diversity issues in relation to persons of different sexual orientation. One respondent noted that domestic abuse is prevalent in all relationships; however, there may be additional issues in LGBTQ+ relationships, for example, awareness within the victim’s family.One respondent referred to a recent study undertaken with individuals within the LGBTQ community. 52% of respondents in this study disclosed that they had experienced some form of abusive behaviour from a partner or ex-partner. OutcomeAs we anticipate that the policies will apply, and be accessible, equally to all groups/individuals we do not consider there is evidence to indicate that this category will be adversely affected. The policy will need to recognise and respond appropriately to domestic homicide cases where equality and diversity issues, including sexual orientation, may require special consideration. As mentioned previously guidance and practice will be developed in line with this.Men and Women generallyThere is data available in Northern Ireland with regard to domestic violence and abuse/domestic homicide and men and women generally (gender). There is significantly less evidence referencing gender identity. Evidence collated for the development of the Stopping Domestic and Sexual Violence and Abuse Strategy, and associated policies and information gained from stakeholders, indicates that domestic violence/abuse and domestic homicide are not confined to any particular gender or gender identity. However as previously noted a proportionately high percentage of victims of domestic violence and abuse recorded crime and domestic homicide are women.Evidence from Northern IrelandPSNI dataAs the information below indicates in relation to domestic motivated homicides (from 2010 to 2017) there have been 12 male victims and 24 female victims.With regards to domestic abuse crimes generally in 2016/17, based on the table below, we have estimated:69.05% of victims were female;30.87% of victims were male;gender was missing/unknown for the remainder.Source: PSNI - Financial year trends in domestic abuse – statistical bulletin for 2016/17 – summary tables – available at: [Accessed 18 October 2018]MARAC Trends and Statistics 2016 management report April 2017, Relevant extracts below:Of the 10,752 high risk cases discussed to date at MARACs 10,213 were female victims (95%) and 539 male victims (5%). The victim gender profile for 2016 shows that of the 1,336 cases heard 1,265 (94.7%) of victims were female and 71 (5.3%) were male. In 2015 there were 96 cases involving male victims showing a decrease of 24 male victims coming forward in 2016. Comparison of these figures to those of 2013 shows a decrease of 24 (-25%) male referrals. The MARAC gender profile from 2010 to 2016 is illustrated below in fig.2. Fig. 2 Gender percentages 2010-2016Case RelationshipsIn 2016 there were 1,336 high risk cases heard at MARAC. In some cases there was more than one victim or perpetrator identified (therefore there can be multiple relations referenced for one case). There were 1,344 relationships pinpointed. A summary of the case relationships is detailed in table 9 and fig. 5.RelationshipsNumber IdentifiedFemale victims in current relationships690Male victims in current relationships24Female victims and former partners690Male victims and former partners13Female victims and family members124Male victims and family members40Annual total1344Table 9: Case RelationshipsFig. 5 Case Relationships by GenderOf the 10,752 high risk cases discussed to date at MARACs 49 victims (0.46%) were from the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities (LGBT). The statistics for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities show a reduction of 0.04% respectively.MARAC Statistics – December 2017 CriteriaMonthTotalCumulativeTotalFrom Jan 20172016 TotalsCumulativeTotalFrom Jan 2010Number ofCases Discussed1261429133612181Repeat Cases353443152771Children in Household1501767172315709Victim profileS75 groupingFemale1181370126511583Male85971598LGBT12751Lesbian125Gay002Bisexual female000Bisexual male000Transgender female000Transgender male000Disability cases23416196Female13115Male131Women’s Aid Federation Northern Ireland - 24 Hour Domestic & Sexual Violence Helpline – Year End Report April 2017 – March 2018 Relevant extracts below:In 2017/18 a total number of 26,477 calls were managed by the Helpline. A total number of 16,988 calls were answered during the year.During April 2017 – March 2018 out of all our callers who identified as “self” being the one affected by domestic and sexual violence, 95.5% were female and 4.5% of all callers were male.Northern Ireland Crime SurveyThe Northern Ireland Crime Survey (NICS) 2015/16 estimate that 12.1% of people aged 16-64 have experienced at least one form of domestic violence, by a partner, since age 16, with women (15.1%) displaying a higher prevalence rate than men (8.4%).The Survey went on to highlight that 6.4% of people aged 16-64 have experienced at least one form of domestic violence and abuse, by a family member (other than a partner), since age 16, with women (7.5%) displaying a higher prevalence rate than men (5.0%). ResearchIn 2010 a publication by Men’s Advisory Project, exploring local evidence of the attitudes and needs of male victims of domestic violence and abuse, noted that ‘men can experience a wide range of domestic violence and abuse as can women. It also noted that this abuse has a wide ranging negative effect on their lives, just as it has with women.’ The document cited that ‘the nature of abuse experienced by male victims in this study was primarily emotional and psychological abuse, which is of concern given the research which shows the long term negative consequences of these forms of abuse’ ‘However reports of physical violence were also very common and the use of weapons and other serious physical incidents mirror the experiences reported in other pieces of research on male victims’. The study also highlighted that men showed a reluctance to report domestic abuse for a number of reasons, including protecting children, fear of disbelief and a lack of awareness of services.Source: MAP Belfast (2010) Towards Gender Equality: Exploring the evidence of the attitudes towards and the needs of male victims of domestic violence and abuse in Northern Ireland with recommendations for change, Available at: from England and WalesHome OfficeDomestic Homicide Reviews – Full Equality Impact Assessment, Home Office, March 2011.Relevant extract below:In 2004/05 there were a total of 146 domestic homicides (106 females, 40 males);In 2005/06 and 2006/07 there were 110 domestic homicides in each of those years (88 females, 22 males; and 83 females and 27 males respectively). In 2008/09, a greater proportion of female victims were killed by their partner, ex-partner or lover; a total of 101 of the 132 victims of domestic homicides were female and 31 of the 132 victims were male.Latest published figures for 2009/10 show that just over half of female victims of homicide aged 16 or over had been killed by their partner, ex-partner or lover (54%, 94 offences). In contrast, only five per cent of male victims aged 16 or over were killed by their partner, ex-partner or lover in 2009/10 (21 offences)4.It should be noted that the above figures may not accurately reflect the actual number of domestic homicides. In particular, where a victim has died following a forced marriage, families and communities may not admit to the context in which the offence occurred and as a result it may not be recorded as a domestic homicide.Data is also shown according to the year in which the offences were recorded by police as homicide. This is not necessarily the year in which the incident took place, or the year in which any court decision was made.The above highlights the fact that there are also likely to be more male victims of domestic violence than official statistics show, as in many cases men are more reluctant to disclose, or indeed see, the abuse in the context of domestic violence. In addition to this, the information suggests that the factors involved in domestic homicides where a male is the victim may be different to that of female victims and this may influence the way in which a review is carried out.4.1 Assessment of the impactDomestic violence and homicide occurs across society, regardless of age, gender, race, sexuality, wealth, and geography. Therefore, in a number of cases, there will be issues relating to equality and diversity. There will also be times where violence and homicide may be preventable.The statutory guidance for conducting DHRs seeks to take account of issues of diversity that need to be borne in mind when DHR is taking place. Specific examples of this may include:The need to ensure that procedures are sensitive and appropriate to the gender and sexual orientation of the victim/perpetrator and their families. There may also be different dynamics where same sex relationships are involved, particularly those living with children.Key findings from analysis of Domestic Homicide Reviews, Home Office, December 2016Relevant extracts below:In 2014/15 there were 50 male and 107 female domestic homicide victims (which includes intimate partner homicides and familial homicides) aged 16 and over. Although the number of both male and female domestic homicide victims fluctuated from year to year, there is a clear downward trend. Among women, the majority of domestic homicide victims were killed by a partner / ex-partner. Among both men and women the highest proportion of domestic homicides was among those aged 30 to 50 (around two-fifths). The most common method of killing for both male and female domestic homicide victims was by a knife or other sharp instrument. The majority of principal suspects in domestic homicide cases were male (87% for combined years 2010/11 to 2014/15) and nearly one half were aged between 30 and 50 years old. Of the 33 intimate partner homicides considered as part of this analysis, just under half (15 cases) included dependent children in the family structure. Mental health issues were present in 25 of the 33 intimate partner homicides. In just over half of all DHRs (21), substance use was mentioned. In 24 of the 33 intimate partner homicides, the perpetrator had a history of violence. In six cases the victim had a history of violence towards the perpetrator. 24. Of the 33 intimate partner homicide DHRs the majority (29) involved a male perpetrator and female victim(s). In the remaining four DHRs the victim was male and the perpetrator was female. The sample did not include any homicides involving same sex relationships. Multi-agency Statutory Guidance for the Conduct of Domestic Homicide Reviews, December 2016, Home Office Relevant extracts below:35. The review panel should bear in mind equality and diversity issues at all times and comply with the requirements of the Public Sector Equality Act duties. Age, disability (including learning disabilities), gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion and belief, ethnicity, sex and sexual orientation may all have a bearing on how the review is explained and conducted, and how the outcomes are disseminated to local communities. f)Are there any specific considerations around equality and diversity issues such as age, disability (including learning disabilities), gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion and belief, sex and sexual orientation that may require special consideration? Were procedures sensitive to the ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious identity of the victim, the perpetrator and their families? Was consideration for vulnerability and disability necessary? Were any of the other protected characteristics relevant in this case? World Health Organisation – female victims Global estimates published by WHO indicate that about 1 in 3 (35%) women worldwide have experienced either physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence or non-partner sexual violence in their lifetime.Most of this violence is intimate partner violence. Worldwide, almost one third (30%) of women who have been in a relationship report that they have experienced some form of physical and/or sexual violence by their intimate partner in their lifetime. Globally, as many as 38% of murders of women are committed by a male intimate partner.Violence can negatively affect women’s physical, mental, sexual and reproductive health, and may increase vulnerability to HIV.The unequal position of women relative to men and the normative use of violence to resolve conflict are strongly associated with both intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence.Source - World Health Organisation - Violence against women - Fact sheet Updated November 2016. [Accessed 18 October 2018]Research An extract from The Coral Project: Exploring Abusive Behaviours in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and/or Transgender Relationships Interim Report outlines:In summary, there is recognition in both law and national policy that LGB and/or T people can be victims/survivors of domestic and sexual violence and abuse and some measures have been taken to provide appropriate services and legal measures in response to their needs.There is a very relevant foot note reference associated with the summary above:Help-seeking remains a challenge since LGB and/or T victim/survivors are rarely visible in mainstream (e.g. police) or specialist domestic violence services (Donovan and Hester, 2014; Stonewall Housing, 2013; Hester et al, 2012; Roch et al, 2010); and LGBT referrals to MARACs remain disproportionately low (CAADA, 2013). The work of Harding (2014) on gay male homicide also suggests that often the police are unable to recognise the nature of gay sexual relationships in order to name the murder of some gay men as domestic homicide. Source: The Coral Project: Exploring Abusive Behaviours in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and/or Transgender Relationships Interim Report, September 2014. Professor Catherine Donovan, Dr Rebecca Barnes and Dr Catherine Nixon University of Sunderland and University of Leicester (Funded by the Economic and Social Research Council: ES/J012580/1) [Accessed 18 October 2018]Northern Ireland ConsultationA number of respondents were of the view that women are disproportionately victims of domestic homicide because they are women, and this fact is inextricably linked with gender inequality. They therefore urge that the gendered nature of the killing of women is not overlooked in equality and diversity considerations in DHRs. One respondent suggested that if the proposals are implemented effectively, they have the potential to better safeguard the equality and human rights of women. Two respondents considered that all terminology used in the DHR process should be gender neutral, given that domestic and sexual violence impacts on all genders. OutcomeAs we anticipate that the policies will apply, and be accessible, equally to all groups/individuals we do not consider there is evidence to indicate that this category will be adversely affected. The DHR policy and Panel will need to recognise and respond appropriately to domestic homicide cases where equality and diversity issues may require special consideration. As mentioned previously guidance and practice will be developed in line with this.??DisabilityThere is little data available with regard to domestic violence and abuse/domestic homicide and disability. Evidence collated for the development of the Stopping Domestic and Sexual Violence and Abuse Strategy, and associated policies and information gained from stakeholders, indicates that domestic violence/abuse and domestic homicide are not confined to those with a disability or those without. Evidence from Northern IrelandMARAC Trends and Statistics 2016 management report April 2017, Relevant extracts below:Of the 10,752 high risk cases discussed to date at MARACs 162 cases (1.5%) involved victims with a disabilityMARAC Statistics – December 2017 (used to provide full year figures)CategoriesCriteriaMonthTotalCumulativeTotalFrom Jan 20172016 TotalsCumulativeTotalFrom Jan 2010Number ofCases Discussed1261429133612181Repeat Cases353443152771Children in Household1501767172315709Victim profileS75 groupingDisability cases23416196Female13115Male131Women’s Aid Federation Northern Ireland - 24 Hour Domestic & Sexual Violence Helpline – Year End Report April 2017 – March 2018 Relevant extracts below:In 2017/18 a total number of 26,477 calls were managed by the Helpline. A total number of 16,988 calls were answered during the year.Callers with Additional Complex Needs:A significant number of callers to the Helpline inform us about the current issues that they are having with poor mental health. This includes callers who have a diagnosed mental health condition through to those who experience depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts and ideations and panic attacks etc. Evidence from England and WalesDomestic Homicide Reviews – Full Equality Impact Assessment, Home Office, March 2011.Relevant extract below:Women are more likely than men to have experienced intimate violence across all the different types of abuse. Since the age of 16, 29% of women have experienced domestic abuse. The equivalent figure for men is 16%. The vast majority of the incidents of domestic abuse, are perpetrated by men on women. This is in contrast to findings on overall crime victimisation where men, particularly young men, were more likely to have experienced violent crime.In 2008/09, a greater proportion of female victims (53%) than male victims (7%) were killed by their partner, ex-partner or lover. Females accounted for 77 per cent of all partner, ex-partner homicide victims in 2008/09.Latest published figures show that just over half of female victims of homicide aged 16 or over had been killed by their partner, ex-partner or lover (54%, 94 offences), a slightly lower proportion than in 2008/09 (58%, 100 offences). In contrast, only five per cent of male victims aged 16 or over were killed by their partner, ex-partner or lover in 2009/10. Gender IdentityThe report from focus groups run by the Women’s National Commission found that transsexual women reported harassment, violence and routinely experienced abuse from children and young people.Domestic Homicide Reviews – Full Equality Impact Assessment, Home Office, March 2011.Relevant extract below:People with a long-term illness or disability are more likely to be a victim of domestic abuse and stalking than people without. It should be noted that this does not imply causation and these findings should be treated as indicative rather than conclusive.Further research indicates that disabled women or those with mental health problems are at a higher risk of victimisation. Disabled women may be around twice as likely to be assaulted or raped, and more than half of all women with a disability may have experienced some form of domestic violence in their lifetime. In addition, at least half of all women in touch with mental health services have experienced violence and abuse, yet the level of awareness amongst mental health professionals can be low and women are rarely asked about their experience of violence.[Note - Given the extract below was regarding accessibility it is considered that much of the text applies equally to individuals with a disability]2.3 Please list the specific equality issues and data gaps that may need to be addressed through consultation and/or further research?Cultural and language barriers in some communities were considered to have an impact on some groups’ willingness to share information e.g. Gypsy & Traveller groups, victims of honour killings. This may be a significant factor when attempting to gather information in such cases. In these situations there is often wider collusion in the abuse from extended family, and the community as a whole are less likely to disclose, or be honest, about the circumstances of the death. There was also concern about those individuals who may have a fear of deportation.The statutory guidance directs review panels to involve individuals across a broad spectrum of both statutory and voluntary agencies and ensuring that ‘experts’ in particular fields are included in the review process as appropriate.At all times in the review process, qualified interpreters should be used rather than other family members or individuals from local community. This will help to maintain confidentiality which is essential in such cases. Experts with experience in handling such cases should also be involved.It was identified that where information/review findings were published, this needed to be made available in a variety of formats, for example: large print, Braille, different languages, audio and internet. It was also high-lighted that some ethic groups/communities have their own media/methods of communicating, and that this may lead to messages from the review being misinterpreted.The statutory guidance makes clear that where appropriate, consideration should also be given to translating the report into different languages and other formats, such as Braille, British Sign Language. Partners in statutory services have raised concerns about whether the guidance will be able to reach the front-line practitioners that do not currently engage in DHRs, rather than simply reinforcing the knowledge of those already aware of the issue.To ensure the guidance does reach the right audience, a launch and communications plan was developed in conjunction with corporate partners.The Quality Assurance Group will request feedback (where appropriate) once a review has been completed to determine how individuals felt about the process and their involvement within it. Outcomes of the reviews will also be monitored. This will consist of monitoring by ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation etc. in order to ensure that different groups are not experiencing differential outcomes.Key findings from analysis of Domestic Homicide Reviews, Home Office, December 2016Relevant extracts below:In 2014/15 there were 50 male and 107 female domestic homicide victims (which includes intimate partner homicides and familial homicides) aged 16 and over. Of the 33 intimate partner homicides considered as part of this analysis, just under half (15 cases) included dependent children in the family structure. Mental health issues were present in 25 of the 33 intimate partner homicides. In just over half of all DHRs (21), substance use was mentioned. In 24 of the 33 intimate partner homicides, the perpetrator had a history of violence. In six cases the victim had a history of violence towards the perpetrator. Of the 40 cases analysed, seven were familial homicides. Mental health issues were factors in all seven cases. Substance use by the perpetrator was also noted in all but one familial homicide cases. The number of separate diagnoses, conditions or issues noted in each DHR was also analysed. Of the seven familial homicide perpetrators, four had only one diagnosis, two had two concurrent diagnoses and one perpetrator had three. Substance misuse may also be an issue for either victims or perpetrators. The following extract is from the analysis of key findings (referenced above) and is captured within this section to cover individuals with a disability and those without.Substance use 30. Substance use was mentioned in 20 DHRs: nine DHRs mentioned substance use by the perpetrator only, two by the victim only and nine by both the perpetrator and victim. 31. In seven of the 20 DHRs where substance use was mentioned, this was not reported to health services. In the remaining 13 DHRs, the substance use was known to health services as being problematic. Table 3 shows the breakdown of substance use by types. Co-occurrence of substance use and mental health issues 32. Among perpetrators and victims the presence of both substance use and mental health issues was more common than either issue occurring alone. For example, 12 DHRs involved perpetrators and seven involved victims with both mental health and substance use issues (Figure 2). 33. It is important to note that both substance use and mental health issues individually or together amongst perpetrators and victims are aggravating factors that escalate violence in relationships already abusive. Multi-agency Statutory Guidance for the Conduct of Domestic Homicide Reviews, December 2016, Home Office Relevant extracts below:35. The review panel should bear in mind equality and diversity issues at all times and comply with the requirements of the Public Sector Equality Act duties. Age, disability (including learning disabilities), gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion and belief, ethnicity, sex and sexual orientation may all have a bearing on how the review is explained and conducted, and how the outcomes are disseminated to local communities. f)Are there any specific considerations around equality and diversity issues such as age, disability (including learning disabilities), gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion and belief, sex and sexual orientation that may require special consideration? Were procedures sensitive to the ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious identity of the victim, the perpetrator and their families? Was consideration for vulnerability and disability necessary? Were any of the other protected characteristics relevant in this case? Northern Ireland ConsultationRespondents noted that disabilities, for example, learning disabilities or mental health issues, would need to be given special consideration. One respondent highlighted that disabled people are particularly vulnerable to domestic violence and abuse. OutcomeAs we anticipate that the policies will apply, and be accessible, equally to all groups/individuals we do not consider there is evidence to indicate that this category will be adversely affected. The policy will need to recognise and respond appropriately to domestic homicide cases where equality and diversity issues, including disability, may require special consideration. As mentioned previously guidance and practice will be developed in line with this.DependantsThere is little data available with regard to domestic violence and abuse/domestic homicide and individuals with/without dependants and those who are dependants. Evidence collated for the development of the Stopping Domestic and Sexual Violence and Abuse Strategy, and associated policies and information gained from stakeholders, indicates that domestic violence/abuse and domestic homicide are not confined to those with/without dependants or those who are dependants. Evidence from Northern IrelandMARAC Statistics – December 2017 (used to provide full year figures)CategoriesCriteriaMonthTotalCumulativeTotalFrom Jan 20172016 TotalsCumulativeTotalFrom Jan 2010Number ofCases Discussed1261429133612181Repeat Cases353443152771Children in Household1501767172315709Evidence from England and WalesDomestic Homicide Reviews – Full Equality Impact Assessment, Home Office, March 2011.Relevant extract below:Other risk indicators for domestic violence:Pregnancy: Studies show that 30 per cent of domestic violence starts during pregnancy and up to 9 per cent of women are thought to be abused during pregnancy or after giving birth. A further study indicates that 70 per cent of teenage mothers are in violent relationships.Key findings from analysis of Domestic Homicide Reviews, Home Office, December 2016Extracts:In 2014/15 there were 50 male and 107 female domestic homicide victims (which includes intimate partner homicides and familial homicides) aged 16 and over. Of the 33 intimate partner homicides considered as part of this analysis, just under half (15 cases) included dependent children in the family structure. Of the 40 cases analysed, seven were familial homicides. Six of these cases involved the son killing a parent; in one case it was the father. Dependent children 26. Of the 33 intimate partner homicide DHRs, the family structure included dependent children in 15 cases, with no dependent children in the remaining 18 cases. In the majority of the 15 DHRs with dependent children, the victim and perpetrator were the parents of the dependent children (11). 27. DHRs were further examined to see whether children witnessed or were affected by any abuse, violence or the homicide itself. This was the case in 12 of the 15 DHRs involving dependent children. 4.1 Assessment of the impactThe guidance for conducting DHRs seeks to take account of issues of diversity that need to be borne in mind when DHR is taking place. Specific examples of this may include:The need to ensure that procedures are sensitive and appropriate to the gender and sexual orientation of the victim/perpetrator and their families. There may also be different dynamics where same sex relationships are involved, particularly those living with children.Multi-agency Statutory Guidance for the Conduct of Domestic Homicide Reviews, December 2016, Home Office Relevant extracts below:35. The review panel should bear in mind equality and diversity issues at all times and comply with the requirements of the Public Sector Equality Act duties. Age, disability (including learning disabilities), gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion and belief, ethnicity, sex and sexual orientation may all have a bearing on how the review is explained and conducted, and how the outcomes are disseminated to local communities. f)Are there any specific considerations around equality and diversity issues such as age, disability (including learning disabilities), gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion and belief, sex and sexual orientation that may require special consideration? Were procedures sensitive to the ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious identity of the victim, the perpetrator and their families? Was consideration for vulnerability and disability necessary? Were any of the other protected characteristics relevant in this case? In relation to overview Reports and Executive Summaries guidance suggest that they should be published unless there are compelling reasons relating to the welfare of any children or other persons directly concerned in the review for this not to happen. Northern Ireland ConsultationRespondents considered that children can offer a unique insight and perspective into their parents lives and it was suggested that where possible, consideration should be given to their involvement in a DHR. They suggested that this process should reflect the child’s age and stage of development and that consideration should be given to entrusting an adult in whom the child trusts to collect this information from the child as appropriate.OutcomeAs we anticipate that the policies will apply, and be accessible, equally to all groups/individuals we do not consider there is evidence to indicate that this category will be adversely affected. The policy will need to recognise and respond appropriately to domestic homicide cases where equality and diversity issues may require special consideration. As mentioned previously guidance and practice will be developed in line with this.*Qualitative data – refers to the experience of individuals related in their own terms, and based on their own experience and attitudes. Qualitative data is often used to complement quantitative data to determine why policies are successful or unsuccessful and the reasons for this.Quantitative data – refers to numbers (that is quantities), typically derived from either a population in general or samples of that population. This information is often analysed either using descriptive statistics (which summarise patterns), or inferential statistics (which are used to infer from a sample about a wider population).16. Needs, experiences and prioritiesTaking into account the information referred to above, what are the different needs, experiences and priorities of each of the following categories, in relation to the particular policy/decision? Specify details for each of the Section 75 categories.A public consultation ran from 4 July 2018 to 28 September 2018. The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland responded and suggested that this section could be amended to provide more clarity on the details of needs/experiences/priorities of those involved in the DHR process. Additions are highlighted in red. Section 75 CategoryDetails of evidence/informationReligious beliefIt is not considered that the policy will have a significant effect on the needs, experiences and priorities of this group. As evidenced domestic violence and abuse and domestic homicide can cut across all sections of the community and can affect individuals and families with a range of religious beliefs. Going forward the DHR panel should bear in mind equality and diversity issues at all times. Equality and diversity issues, including religious belief, may form part/be integral to the case and should be considered within the scope of the review. Our consultation document highlights that there will, within the review process, be an opportunity for individuals (for example family members of the victim) to provide information should they wish to be involved. It is therefore vital that the DHR process, procedures and the Panel member s/Chair, are cognisant and sensitive to the religious beliefs of all those involved in the process. For example, different (lawful) religious customs, practices or holidays should be upheld and respected throughout the process. We acknowledge that individuals involved in the DHR process may encounter language barriers. Therefore we will need to ensure that everyone has appropriate access to the DHR process and are able to fully participate. This may require literature in different languages or the assistance of a translator.It is recognised that some religious groups may not be willing to engage with police. This may, for example, be due to fear of authorities, because of their political opinion (which may be associated with their religious belief), or they could be of the view that domestic violence is a private family matter.We recognise that a range of different practices are considered acceptable and traditional within certain religions. Where possible religious freedoms would be supported within the DHR process and individuals’ religious needs would be handled sensitively. However, this would not be feasible or appropriate where the practice in question is illegal or unacceptable in Northern Ireland.We understand that in certain cultures and religions there may be clear customs as to how individuals, particularly men and women, interact and communicate. For example there may be an expectation that an individual will only speak to an individual of the same gender. Every effort will be made to accommodate this. However, it may not always be feasible. The DHR process will endeavour to recognise and respect the (legal) customs and practices of other cultures/religions in relation to men and women generally, as far as possible.We will ensure that the policy recognises and responds appropriately to domestic homicide cases where equality and diversity issues, including religious belief, may require special consideration. Guidance and practice will be developed in line with this.Political opinion DOJ have no reason to believe the policies will have a significant effect on the needs, experiences and priorities of this group. However, it is acknowledged that political opinion may affect some groups’ willingness to engage with the police/the state and therefore the DHR process.Going forward, the DHR process and Panel should recognise and respond appropriately to cases where equality and diversity issues may require special consideration. We would envisage that this could potentially relate to all Section 75 categories, including political opinion. For example, the political opinion of the family or expert, if known, will be taken into consideration when arranging a suitable venue/location for meetings to take place. Also, the language used in the final report will be carefully considered to ensure that it does not alienate anyone of a particular political opinion. Guidance and practice will be developed to reflect this.Racial groupIt is not considered that the policies will have a significant effect on the needs, experiences and priorities of this group. As noted by the evidence above, a few issues should be considered specifically with regard to this group.As noted previously cultural and language barriers in some communities are considered to have an impact on some groups’ willingness to share information or engage with the police/the state e.g. Gypsy & Traveller groups, victims of honour killings. This may be a significant factor when attempting to gather information in such cases. DHRs need to recognise and respond appropriately to cases where racial group may require special consideration. For example, an expert may be required to sit on, or provide evidence to, the panel. The expert may have particular beliefs, customs or practices linked to their racial background. When engaging experts, careful consideration should also be given as there may be issues of confidentiality with regards to using individuals from the same community as the victim. Some communities may be small or unlikely to share information outside their community. It is also possible that using experts may cause tension in the community. Guidance and practice will be developed in line with this. Panel members might also require equality and diversity training, including race. Consideration may need to be given to arranging qualified translators for families and written correspondence may need to be translated into the relevant language. It may also be appropriate to consider providing the final report of the DHR in a different language/format. It will also be important to use qualified interpreters rather than family members/individuals from the local community, where this would not be appropriate. We understand that in certain cultures and religions there may be clear customs as to how individuals, particularly men and women, interact and communicate. For example there may be an expectation that an individual will only speak to an individual of the same gender. Every effort will be made to accommodate this, however, it may not always be feasible. The DHR process will however endeavour to recognise and respect the (legal) customs and practices of other cultures/religions in relation to men and women generally, as far as possible.As previously noted equality and diversity will be a key consideration within the process and measures will be put in place through guidance, a quality assurance panel etc. to ensure issues related to equality and diversity, including race, are managed sensitively.AgeIt is not considered that the policies will have a significant effect on the needs, experiences and priorities of this group. As noted previously reviewing the case of a domestic homicide where the victim is under 16 is outside the scope of the DHR process (as per the 2004 Act). We have engaged on an ongoing basis with DoH, as well as the Health Board and Trust, and have confirmed that these homicides will be handled within the child safeguarding framework and lessons will be learned through the serious case review/case management review process. As outlined previously a SCR/CMR may also be more appropriate for victims aged 16/17. This will be considered on a case by case basis and as noted in the consultation lessons will be captured in relation to the domestic violence and abuse aspect of the case. With regard to cases that are within the scope of (and progress within) the DHR process, the DHR panel should bear in mind equality and diversity at all times. Age may have a bearing on how the review is explained and conducted, and how the outcomes are disseminated to local communities. The DHR process will engage with people of all ages. Different age groups will have different needs e.g. individuals will need tailored written and verbal communication pitched at their age. Also, children and young people involved in the process may be at school/studying and might not be available to engage at particular times. The individuals who experience the loss of a family member or friend are likely to be traumatised or distressed. The age of those individuals may influence how they respond to trauma and may influence what they need. It is therefore essential that any engagement is carried out sensitively. Adults engaging in the process e.g. family members or experts may be of working age and may not always be available to meet or communicate during working hours.Older people taking part in the process may have additional needs that need to be taken into account. Guidance and practice will be developed in line with this.We consider that individuals, irrespective of age, may benefit from this policy through improved services and the promotion of learning and best practice.Marital statusIt is not considered that the policies will have a significant effect on the needs, experiences and priorities of this group. As noted within the Home Office equality impact assessment people who were separated, divorced or widowed may have higher odds of being victim of domestic abuse and stalking compared with all other marital status groups. As stressed previously this link does not imply causation.This appears to be supported by evidence. However, as noted previously it is difficult to separate out marital status in evidence as data on relationship is often categorised as a spouse and or partner. The review panel should bear in mind equality and diversity issues at all times and comply with the requirements of Equality duties. Marriage and civil partnership may have a bearing on how the review is explained and conducted, and how the outcomes are disseminated to local communities. It should be noted in cases of familial domestic homicide a person’s partner may be able to provide valuable insight regardless of whether or not they are married.Northern Ireland guidance and practice will be developed in line with this.Sexual orientationIt is not considered that the policies will have a significant effect on the needs, experiences and priorities of this group. However, where a homicide occurs in a same-sex relationship, this should not automatically be treated in the same way as a heterosexual relationship. This is due to the dynamics involved in the relationship and whether any further specialist knowledge needs to be obtained to determine the situation.The Home Office equality impact assessment helpfully advises that ‘The statutory guidance for conducting DHRs seeks to take account of issues of diversity that need to be borne in mind when DHR is taking place. Specific examples of this may include - The need to ensure that procedures are sensitive and appropriate to the gender and sexual orientation of the victim/ perpetrator and their families. There may also be different dynamics where same sex relationships are involved, particularly those living with children.Research also highlights that there may be additional barriers/challenges that Lesbian Gay and Bisexual victims face:‘Help-seeking remains a challenge since LGB and/or T victim/survivors are rarely visible in mainstream (e.g. police) or specialist domestic violence services (Donovan and Hester, 2014; Stonewall Housing, 2013; Hester et al, 2012; Roch et al, 2010); and LGBT referrals to MARACs remain disproportionately low (CAADA, 2013). The work of Harding (2014) on gay male homicide also suggests that often the police are unable to recognise the nature of gay sexual relationships in order to name the murder of some gay men as domestic homicide.’ Within the DHR process there may be specific considerations around equality and diversity issues such as marriage and civil partnership, sex and sexual orientation that may require special consideration. In some cases, the victim (and any current or former partners) may not have wished others to know about their sexuality. This must be managed sensitively and appropriately throughout the DHR process. The disclosure of an individual’s sexuality can have a significant adverse impact on individuals and may lead to stigma for the individual and families in communities. Also, the disclosure of a victim’s sexual orientation will disclose the perpetrators sexual orientation. It should be noted that the family may not be aware of the victim’s sexuality, or may not want to engage with the process because of it/fear of disclosure of their sexuality.The Policy, guidance, training etc. will be developed to reflect this. Men and Women generallyBoth men and women may benefit from these policies with regards to improved services and the promotion of learning and best practice.As local, national and international evidence highlights the majority of victims of domestic violence and abuse/domestic homicide are female. As noted by the WHO intimate partner violence worldwide often involves sexual violence. This violence can negatively affect women’s physical, mental, sexual and reproductive health, and may increase vulnerability to HIV. WHO go on to say the unequal position of women, relative to men and the normative use of violence to resolve conflict are strongly associated with both intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence.In relation to male victims a local research study, cited previously, found that men can experience a wide range of domestic violence and abuse and that this has a wide ranging negative effect on their lives, just as it has with female victims. The study highlighted that men showed a reluctance to report domestic abuse for a number of reasons, including protecting children, fear of disbelief and a lack of awareness of services.Other research evidenced also highlights that there may be additional barriers/challenges that transgender victims face:‘Help-seeking remains a challenge since LGB and/or T victim/survivors are rarely visible in mainstream (e.g. police) or specialist domestic violence services (Donovan and Hester, 2014; Stonewall Housing, 2013; Hester et al, 2012; Roch et al, 2010); and LGBT referrals to MARACs remain disproportionately low (CAADA, 2013).’With regard to the DHR process there may be specific considerations around equality and diversity issues such as gender reassignment that may require special consideration going forward. It is recognised that individuals, in particular women, have responsibility for caring for children/dependants. The process will try to accommodate for this. For example, if a woman or man with dependants agrees to engage with the DHR process and attend meetings, consideration should be given to ensure that the timing, length and location of meetings aligns with caring arrangements. In some cases it may be necessary to take account of caring provision to enable participation. We understand that in certain cultures and religions there may be clear customs as to how individuals, particularly men and women, interact and communicate. For example there may be an expectation that an individual will only speak to an individual of the same gender. Every effort will be made to accommodate this. However, it may not always be feasible. The DHR process will endeavour to recognise and respect the (legal) customs and practices of other cultures/religions in relation to men and women generally, as far as possible.Pregnant women or women who are breast feeding might be involved in the process (as part of the panel or because they are participating in the review, for example, a family member of the victim). The process should recognise that pregnant women may not be able to attend meetings at certain times due to antenatal appointments and that breastfeeding mothers might need to feed their baby during meetings. It also acknowledges the need to ensure that procedures are sensitive and appropriate to equality and diversity needs. This will no doubt also relate to the DHR process and the particular needs of men and women generally including those who identify with either/both genders.DisabilityIt is not considered that the policy will have a significant effect on the needs, experiences and priorities of this group. As highlighted in the Home Office impact assessment individuals with a long-term illness or disability are more likely to be a victim of domestic violence than people without. It notes that further research indicates disabled women, or those with mental health problems, are at a higher risk of being victimised. It goes on to say that at least half of all women in touch with mental health services have experienced violence and abuse, yet the level of awareness amongst mental health professionals can be low and women are rarely asked about their experience of violence. It is stressed that this does not imply causation and the findings are indicative rather than conclusive.Individuals involved in the DHR process, or those invited to, may require additional support or reasonable adjustment to fully participate in the process due to a disability or similar issue e.g. mental health, learning difficulty etc.We would also wish to ensure that individuals of all physical ability/mental capacity are able to access the DHR process; attend meetings in appropriately accessible venues and; understand the outworkings of the DHR process.As noted in the Consultation paper if the victim that is central to the DHR case is known and been provided with services in relation to Mental Health issues/illness another Review process may be more appropriate. This will be considered and assessed on a case by case basis and as referenced within the document learning in relation to domestic violence and abuse should still be captured.The review panel should involve individuals across a broad spectrum of both statutory and voluntary agencies and ensure that ‘experts’ in particular fields are included in the review process as appropriate. Where information/review findings are published, this would be capable of being made available in a variety of formats, on request, for example: large print, Braille, audio and internet. The Home Office DHR guidance highlights that some communities have their own media/methods of communicating, and that this may lead to messages from the review being misinterpreted. This matter will have to be carefully considered locally in going forward. It highlighted that translating the report into different languages may include British Sign Language. There may also be specific considerations around equality and diversity issues such as disability (including learning disabilities) that may require special consideration. Guidance, practice, training will be developed in line with this.DependantsIt is not considered that the policies will have a significant effect on the needs, experiences and priorities of this group. As noted under “men and women generally”, individuals may have responsibility for caring for dependants. The process will try to accommodate for this. For example, every effort will be made to ensure that the timing, length and location of meetings, aligns with caring arrangements. In some cases it may be necessary to arrange care provision to enable participation. Home Office analysis of DHRs found that of the 33 intimate partner homicide DHRs, the family structure included dependent children in 15 cases, with no dependent children in the remaining 18 cases. In the majority of the 15 DHRs with dependent children, the victim and perpetrator were the parents of the children (11). DHRs were further examined to see whether children witnessed or were affected by any abuse, violence or the homicide itself. This was the case in 12 of the 15 DHRs involving dependent children. It went on to highlight that in five familial domestic homicides and in six intimate partner homicides ‘caring responsibilities‘ was a factor relating to the victim and perpetrator.In some cases dependants of the victim, including children, may wish to contribute to the process. This will need to be considered on a case by case basis.Guidance from Home Office (in relation to England and Wales) is that overview Reports and Executive Summaries should be published, unless there are compelling reasons relating to the welfare of any children or other persons directly concerned in the review for this not to happen. As noted previously the process should be mindful of equality and diversity issues including individuals with dependants/individuals without dependants as well as the dependants themselves. The needs, experiences and priorities of all nine Section 75 categories have been considered during the development of this policy and will be considered further during the implementation of DHRs through the drafting of guidance/information material, the provision of appropriate training, and the embedding of the process.Part 2SCREENING DECISIONS17.Decision - In favour of noneIf the conclusion is none in respect of all of the Section 75 equality of opportunity and/or good relations categories, then the decision may be to screen the policy out. If a policy is ‘screened out’ as having no relevance to equality of opportunity or good relations, give details of the reasons for the decision taken.Considerations –The policy has no relevance to equality of opportunity or good relations.The policy is purely technical in nature and will have no bearing in terms of its likely impact on equality of opportunity or good relations for people within the equality and good relations categories.18.Decision - In favour of a ‘major’ impactIf the conclusion is major in respect of one or more of the Section 75 equality of opportunity and/or good relations categories, then consideration should be given to subjecting the policy to the equality impact assessment procedure (EQIA).Considerations-Is the policy significant in terms of its strategic importance?The potential equality impacts are unknown, because, for example, there is insufficient data upon which to make an assessment or because they are complex and it would be appropriate to conduct an equality impact assessment in order to better assess them;The potential equality and/or good relations impacts are likely to be adverse or are likely to be experienced disproportionately by groups of people including those who are marginalised or disadvantaged;Further assessment offers a valuable way to examine the evidence and develop recommendations in respect of a policy about which there are concerns amongst affected individuals and representative groups, for example in respect of multiple identities;The policy is likely to be challenged by way of judicial review;The policy is significant in terms of expenditure.19.Decision - In favour of ‘minor’ impactIf the conclusion is minor in respect of one or more of the Section 75 equality categories and/or good relations categories, then consideration should still be given to proceeding with an equality impact assessment, or to:?measures to mitigate the adverse impact; or?the introduction of an alternative policy to better promote equality of opportunity and/or good relations.Considerations –The policy is not unlawfully discriminatory and any residual potential impacts on people are judged to be negligible;The policy, or certain proposals within it, are potentially unlawfully discriminatory, but this possibility can readily and easily be eliminated by making appropriate changes to the policy or by adopting appropriate mitigating measures;Any asymmetrical equality impacts caused by the policy are intentional because they are specifically designed to promote equality of opportunity for particular groups of disadvantaged people;By amending the policy there are better opportunities to better promote equality of opportunity and/or good relations.Part 2 Screening questions2.1 What is the likely impact on equality of opportunity for those affected by this policy, for each of the Section 75 equality categories?Section 75 categoryDetails of policy impactLevel of impact?Minor/Major/NoneReligious beliefIt is not considered that the policies will have an adverse effect on equality of opportunity for this category.NonePolitical opinionIt is not considered that the policies will have an adverse effect on equality of opportunity for this category.NoneRacial groupIt is not considered that the policies will have an adverse effect on equality of opportunity for this category. NoneAgeIt is not considered that the policies will have an adverse effect on equality of opportunity for this category. As mentioned previously the scope of the DHR process is not applicable to victims of domestic homicide who are under 16. Lessons will however be learned and captured under an alternative review process that is already in place.NoneMarital statusIt is not considered that the policies will have an adverse effect on equality of opportunity for this category.NoneSexual orientationIt is not considered that the policies will have an adverse effect on equality of opportunity for this category.NoneMen and Women generally Policies should generally have a positive effect on equality of opportunity for all Section 75 groups including men and women generally. Both men and women may benefit from these policies with regards to improved services and the promotion of learning and best practice.MinorDisabilityIt is not considered that the policies will have an adverse effect on equality of opportunity for this category.NoneDependantsIt is not considered that the policies will have an adverse effect on equality of opportunity for this category.None2.2Are there opportunities to better promote equality of opportunity for people within the Section 75 equalities categories?Section 75 categoryIf Yes, provide detailsIf No, provide reasonsReligious beliefNo, no scope to do so.Political opinionNoRacial groupNoAgeNoMarital statusNoSexual orientationNoMen and Women generally NoDisabilityNoDependantsNo2.3.To what extent is the policy likely to impact on good relations between people of different religious belief, political opinion or racial group?Good relations categoryDetails of policy impactLevel of impactMinor/Major/NoneReligious beliefThe policies are likely to have little impact on good relations. However given that DHR is a new policy/process there may be a need for appropriate outreach work to be done in engaging with sections of the community. Particularly where information may be sought on from friends and family of a domestic homicide victim.MinorPolitical opinionAs above.MinorRacial groupAs above.Minor2.4.Are there opportunities to better promote good relations between people of different religious belief, political opinion or racial group?Good relations categoryIf Yes, provide detailsIf No, provide reasonsReligious beliefThere are no significant opportunities of promoting good relations between groups especially given the complex and sensitive nature of Domestic Violence and Abuse and Domestic Homicides.There may however be learning captured and shared from a DHR case that leads to a change in services/practice that in turn improves relations. Political opinionSee aboveRacial groupSee aboveAdditional ConsiderationsMultiple Identity20.Generally speaking, people can fall into more than one Section 75 category. Taking this into consideration, are there any potential impacts of the policy/decision on people with multiple identities?(For example; disabled minority ethnic people; disabled women; young Protestant men; and young lesbians, gay and bisexual people).21.Provide details of data on the impact of the policy on people with multiple identities. Specify relevant Section 75 categories concerned.Multiple S75 identities may lead to an individual being more vulnerable to domestic violence and abuse. While victims/individuals may present with multiple identities this policy applies to everyone irrespective of religious belief, political opinion, racial group, age*, marital/civil partnership status, sexual orientation, gender/gender identity, whether they have/have not dependants or any form of disability or any combination of these categories. *As previous referenced children (under 16) will also benefit from the policy.Nothing further to add to previous evidence, following the public consultation.Part 3 Screening Decision3.1.Screened In - If the decision is to conduct an equality impact assessment, please provide details of the rationale and relevant evidence to support this decision.3.2.Screened Out – No EQAI necessary (no impact) If the decision is not to conduct an equality impact assessment, please provide details of the rationale and relevant evidence to support this decision.DOJ does not consider that the policy will impact adversely on equality of opportunity for any of the Section 75 groups. Further evidence sought through the public consultation has not changed this decision. 3.3.Screened Out – Mitigating Actions (minor impacts) When the decision is that the likely impact is ‘minor’ and an equality impact assessment is not to be conducted, you may consider mitigation to lessen the severity of any equality impact, or the introduction of an alternative policy to better promote equality of opportunity or good relations.Can the policy/decision be amended or changed or an alternative policy introduced to better promote equality of opportunity and/or good relations?If so, give the reasons to support your decision, together with the proposed changes/amendments or alternative policy. Explain how these actions will address the inequalities.We do not consider any significant mitigation or an alternative policy is required at this time. Consideration and sensitivity to equality and diversity will be central to the DHR process and DHR panel considerations. The DHR model and associated materials developed has been and will be reviewed by a task and finish group which draws its diverse membership from the statutory, voluntary and community sectors.Timetabling and Prioritising22.Factors to be considered in timetabling and prioritising policies for equality impact assessment.23.If the policy has been ‘screened in’ for equality impact assessment, then please answer the following questions to determine its priority for timetabling the equality impact assessment.24.On a scale of 1-3, with 1 being the lowest priority and 3 being the highest, assess the policy in terms of its priority for equality impact assessment.Priority criterionRating(1-3)Effect on equality of opportunity and good relationsn/aSocial needn/aEffect on people’s daily livesn/aRelevance to a public authority’s functionsn/aNote: The Total Rating Score should be used to prioritise the policy in rank order with other policies screened in for equality impact assessment. This list of priorities will assist in timetabling. Details of the Equality Impact Assessment Timetable should be included in the quarterly Screening Report.25.Is the policy affected by timetables established by other relevant public authorities?If yes, please provide details.Part 4 MonitoringSection 75 places a requirement on the Department to have equality monitoring arrangements in place in order to assess the impact of policies and services etc. and to help identify barriers to fair participation and to better promote equal opportunity. Effective monitoring will help identify any future adverse impact arising from the policy which may lead the public authority to conduct an equality impact assessment, as well as help with future planning and policy development.Outline what data you will collect in the future in order to monitor the impact of this policy/ decision on equality, good relation and disability duties.EqualityThe policy will be monitored by reviewing the data relied upon for this screening exercise.Formal monitoring arrangements for the operation of the policy as a whole will be outlined once the model is fully formed and tested.Good relationsAs aboveDisability DutiesAs abovePart 5 Formal Record of Screening DecisionTitle of Proposed Policy / Decision being screenedI can confirm that the proposed policy/decision has been screened for –?Equality of opportunity?Good Relations?Disability dutiesOn the basis of the answer to the screening questions, I recommend that this policy /decision is – ?Screened in – necessary to conduct a full EQIA?Screened Out – no EQIA necessary (no impacts)?Screened Out – mitigating actions (minor impacts)Part 6 Approval and Authorisation(Have you sent this document to the Equality Unit prior to obtaining signature?)Screened/completed by:GradeDateJoanne McPaddenRe- screened Emma Crozier (Acting) DPSO21.06.1818.10.18Approved by (Grade 7 or above):Veronica HollandRe-screenedVeronica HollandGrade 7Grade 726.06.1818.10.18Quality AssurancePrior to final approval the Screening Form should be forwarded to EqualityandStaffSupportServices@justice-ni.x..uk for comment/quality assurance. Contact the branch should you require advice or have any queries prior to this stage. Any NIPS forms should be forwarded to Peter.Grant@justice-ni.x..ukWhen you receive a response and there are no further considerations required, the form should be ‘signed off’ and approved by a senior manager responsible for the policy, this would normally be at least grade 7. The completed Screening Form should be placed on the DOJ Website where it will be made easily accessible to the public and be available on request. In addition, it will be included in a quarterly listing of all screenings completed during each 3 month period and issued to consultees.The Screening exercise is now complete. Please retain a record in your branch and send a copy for information to:-Equality and Staff Support Services (ESSS)Room 3.4, Castle Buildings Stormont EstateBELFASTBT4 3SGTel: 02890 522611or e-mail to EqualityandStaffSupportServices@justice-ni.x..ukANNEX ASCREENING FLOWCHARTPolicy ScopingConsider Available Data and EvidenceScreening QuestionsApply screening questionsConsider multiple identitiesScreening DecisionNone/Minor/Major‘None’Screened out‘Minor’Screened out withmitigation‘Major’Screened in for EQIASend the form toEqualityandStaffSupportServices@justice-ni.x..ukWhen returned arrange to be signed off by Grade 7 or above Concerns /queries raised i.e. evidence re: screening decisionPublish completed Screening Form on DOJ InternetEQIARe-consider ScreeningFuture MonitoringPolicy ScopingConsider Available Data and EvidenceScreening QuestionsApply screening questionsConsider multiple identitiesScreening DecisionNone/Minor/Major‘None’Screened out‘Minor’Screened out withmitigation‘Major’Screened in for EQIASend the form toEqualityandStaffSupportServices@justice-ni.x..ukWhen returned arrange to be signed off by Grade 7 or above Concerns /queries raised i.e. evidence re: screening decisionPublish completed Screening Form on DOJ InternetEQIARe-consider ScreeningFuture MonitoringANNEX BMAIN GROUPS IDENTIFIED AS RELEVANT TO THE SECTION 75 CATEGORIESCategoryMain GroupsReligious BeliefProtestants; Catholics; people of other religious belief; people of no religious beliefPolitical OpinionUnionists generally; Nationalists generally; members/supporters of any political partyRacial GroupWhite people; Chinese; Irish Travellers; Indians; Pakistanis; Bangladeshis; Black Africans; Afro Caribbean people; people of mixed ethnic group, other groupsAgeFor most purposes, the main categories are: children under 18; people aged between 18 and 65. However the definition of age groups will need to be sensitive to the policy under consideration. For example, for some employment policies, children under 16 could be distinguished from people of working ageMarital/Civil Partnership StatusMarried people; unmarried people; divorced or separated people; widowed people; civil partnershipsSexual OrientationHeterosexuals; bisexual people; gay men; lesbiansMen and Women generallyMen (including boys); women (including girls); trans-gender and trans-sexual peoplePersons with a disability and persons without Persons with a physical, sensory or learning disability as defined in Schedules 1 and 2 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Persons with dependants and persons without Persons with primary responsibility for the care of a child; persons with personal responsibility for the care of a person with a disability; persons with primary responsibility for a dependent elderly person. ANNEX CHuman RightsPlease complete the table below to indicate whether the policy / decision affects anyone’s Human Rights? Evidence – Domestic Homicide Reviews – Full Equality Impact Assessment, Home Office, March 2011.Relevant extract below:Anyone who is in the UK for any reason has fundamental human rights which government and public authorities are legally obliged to respect. These include the right to life and the right to be free from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment (Articles 2 & 3 respectively of the EU Convention on Human Rights).ARTICLEPOSITIVE IMPACTNEGATIVE IMPACT = human right interfered with or restrictedNEUTRAL IMPACT Article 2 – Right to lifeThis policy will improve services through the promotion of learning and best practice.Article 3 – Right to freedom from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment As above.Article 4 – Right to freedom from slavery, servitude & forced or compulsory labourAs above.Article 5 – Right to liberty & security of personAs aboveArticle 6 – Right to a fair & public trial within a reasonable timeArticle 7 – Right to freedom from retrospective criminal law & no punishment without law.Article 8 – Right to respect for private & family life, home and correspondence.This is an issue that will be a particular focus in relation to the information that is captured and shared as part of the DHR process. This will be explored through the completion of a Privacy Impact AssessmentArticle 9 – Right to freedom of thought, conscience & religionAs above.Article 10 – Right to freedom of expressionAs aboveArticle 11 – Right to freedom of assembly & associationAs aboveArticle 12 – Right to marry & found a familyAs above.Article 14 – Prohibition of discrimination in the enjoyment of the convention rightsAs above.1st protocol Article 1 – Right to a peaceful enjoyment of possessions & protection of propertyAs above1st protocol Article 2 – Right of access to educationAs above-219456224511Consideration of these rights will be a fundamental matter for the Chair and Panel to make in sharing and publishing information and managing the DHR process, in particular when engaging with the family and friends of those individuals within the case.A Data Protection Impact Assessment will be completed to assess and mitigate any risk factors in relation to the sharing of information during the DHR process. All information will be handled in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR).00Consideration of these rights will be a fundamental matter for the Chair and Panel to make in sharing and publishing information and managing the DHR process, in particular when engaging with the family and friends of those individuals within the case.A Data Protection Impact Assessment will be completed to assess and mitigate any risk factors in relation to the sharing of information during the DHR process. All information will be handled in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR).If you have identified a likely negative impact who is affected and how?At this stage we would recommend that you consult with your line manager to determine whether to seek legal advice and to refer to Human Rights Guidance to consider:whether there is a law which allows you to interfere with or restrict rightswhether this interference or restriction is necessary and proportionatewhat action would be required to reduce the level of interference or restriction in order to comply with the Human Rights Act (1998).Outline any actions which could be taken to promote or raise awareness of human rights or to ensure compliance with the strategy in relation to the policy/decision.-6096019685No actions considered necessary at this time.00No actions considered necessary at this time.Approval and authorisation of addition ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download