Faults found with domestic violence report handling
A domestic homicide review (DHR) has found multiple failings in the way reports of domestic abuse were dealt with before a woman was murdered by her estranged husband.
A domestic homicide review (DHR) has found multiple failings in the way reports of domestic abuse were dealt with before a woman was murdered by her estranged husband.
In April 2012, Natalie Esack was stabbed to death by Ivan Esack, a former police officer, at her hair salon in Ashford, Kent. Esack was sentenced to life imprisonment for her murder in January 2013, with a recommendation that he serves a minimum of 28 years.
A multi-agency review into her death, published earlier this month, outlined failings in the way Kent Police dealt with reports of abuse. The DHR found Ms Esack contacted the force on five occasions between December 2009 and March 2012 to report concerns about her husband.
It also noted that in February 2012, Kent Police did not act on Ms Esacks report that he had been carrying a knife when he went to her address the previous day.
According to the DHR, in October 2011 Kent Police could have arrested Esack for sending malicious communications or he could have been issued with a harassment warning.
The report also concluded that all available information on Ms Esack was not collated and the fact that Esack had allegedly strangled Ms Esack until she passed out was not known to all officers.
It also found that the computer-aided dispatch (CAD) completed by the force control centre, which contained this information, was not entered on the crime report.
Had all the information been collated, the domestic abuse stalking and harassment risk (DASH) assessment in March 2012 should have been graded high risk rather than medium risk.
The report was also critical of the variable quality of Kent Polices DASH assessments. It noted the importance of training being regularly refreshed and that supervisors should have the capacity to collate all relevant background information to inform their decisions about level of risk.
The DHR also recommends that police officers should be reminded that following a report of domestic abuse involving a member of Kent Police, the professional standards department should be informed.
The planned review by Kent Police of the central referral unit (CRU) should also consider the capacity of the unit to carry out effective assessments of crime and secondary incident reports graded as standard risk. The review should also consider whether the assessment of such cases should be the responsibility of divisional supervisors rather than the CRU.
Ms Esacks family hope that lessons will be learnt from this missed opportunity, especially the importance of interviewing family members and friends of a victim, as they might have information which a victim of domestic abuse is reluctant to disclose.
Detective Superintendent Tim Smith said: Kent Police acknowledges the findings of the DHR and improvements as a result of the recommendations have been in place for some time now. As a force we are always looking at ways to improve how we work and provide a better service to the people of Kent.
The report rightly highlights missed opportunities and recognises no one agency had the full picture of the domestic abuse Natalie suffered. Natalies death is a tragedy and she was murdered by her estranged husband who was intent on killing her.