Consultation outcome

Domestic homicide review legislation amendments public consultation economic note

Updated 5 March 2024

Number: HOEN 0029

Title of regulatory proposal: Domestic homicide review legislation amendments public consultation

Lead Department/Agency: Home Office

Expected date of implementation: Summer 2024 (tbc)

Origin: Domestic

Date: 12/06/2023

Lead Departmental Contact: Name: Heenal.ghedia@homeoffice.gov.uk

Departmental Assessment: Green

Rationale for intervention, objectives and intended effects

The Tackling Domestic Abuse (DA) Plan 2022 commits to reform the domestic homicide review (DHR) process as part of work to reduce domestic homicides. Proposed amendments to DHRs are to be publicly consulted on. Legislative amendments are intended to ensure DHRs reflect the range of the deaths which fall within the scope of a DHR.

Policy options (including alternatives to regulation)

Part 1: DHRs can be commissioned in instances of deaths that result from ‘violence, abuse and neglect’. The term ‘homicide’ in the latter can be confusing or problematic.

Option 1a: Do nothing and retain the term ‘homicide’ for all deaths. Option 1b: Re-name all DHRs as ‘domestic abuse fatality reviews’

Option 1c: Use ‘domestic abuse fatality review’ for domestic abuse-related deaths, for example suicides linked to DA, and retain ‘DHR’ for domestic homicides.

Part 2: Current DHR legislation sets out when a DHR should be considered, but this does not align with the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (DA 2021) definition of DA.

Option 2a: Do nothing retaining the current legislation.

Option 2b: Update legislation so a DHR is commissioned for deaths linked to DA as defined in the DA 2021.

Costs and benefit summary

There are no monetised costs expected because of these legislative changes. It is anticipated that the tighter criteria in option 2b would result in an overall reduction in DHRs. The expected benefits of this reduction have been monetised.

Risks

There is a risk that amending the legislation could result in some unexplained deaths being missed. This can be mitigated by legislative wording and statutory guidance.

Total Cost £m PV	Transition Cost £m	Cost to Business £m	Total Benefit £m PV
£0	£0	£0	£0.13
NPSV (£m)	BNPV (£m)	EANDCB (£m)	BIT Score [footnote 1] (£m)
£0.13	£0	£0	£0
Price Base Year	PV Base Year	Appraisal period	Transition period
2023/24	2023/24	10 years	0 year

Departmental sign-off (SCS):	Lynne Abrams	Date: 09/06/23
Chief Economist sign-off:	Tim Laken	Date: 12/06/23
Better Regulation Unit sign-off:	Emma Kirk	Date: 12/06/23

Evidence base

A. Background

1. The Tackling Domestic Abuse (DA) Plan 2022 ^{[footnote 2]} commits to reform the DHR process as part of a wider package of work to reduce domestic abuse and domestic homicides (DH). DHRs were legislated for via the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (DVCV 2004)^{[footnote 3]}. A DHR is a multi-agency review which seeks to identify and implement lessons learnt from deaths which have, or appear to have, resulted from the circumstances listed in the legislation. DHRs are commissioned by the local Community Safety Partnership (CSP) as they concentrate on recommendations for local agencies, although can also have national recommendations, to improve victim safeguarding to prevent further fatalities.

B. The policy issue and rationale for government intervention

2. The DVCV 2004 sets out the circumstances when a DHR should be considered, however this does not align with the DA 2021 definition of DA^{[footnote 4]}. The DVCV 2004 specifies that DHRs should be considered in instances where ‘the death of a person aged 16 or over has, or appears to have, resulted from violence, abuse or neglect by: (a) a person to whom he was related or with whom he was or had been in an intimate personal relationship; (b) a member of the same household as himself. This means that a DHR can be commissioned in instances where a victim and perpetrator were, for instance, housemates, which does not generate meaningful learning about domestic abuse.

3. As part of work to improve DHRs, 2 areas required for legislative changes have been identified. The first is updating the legislation so that a DHR is commissioned when the death has, or appears to have, resulted from DA as defined by DA 2021. This will ensure that DHRs capture and provide learnings into all relevant deaths that are a result of DA. The second is amending the term ‘homicide’ in DHRs to reflect the range of the deaths which fall within the scope of a DHR. As DHRs are commissioned in instances of suicides linked to DA, the term ‘homicide’ does not adequately represent the circumstances of the fatality. Ministry of Justice officials have indicated the proposed legislative amendments would fit within the remit of the Victims and Prisoners Bill^{[footnote 5]} in improving the government’s offer to victims.

C. Policy objectives and intended effects

4. This policy is intended to:

• Amend the name of DHRs to adequately reflect that suicides linked to DA can also be subject to a DHR.
• Update legislation so that a DHR is commissioned when the death has, or appears to have, resulted from DA as defined by the DA 2021. This will replace the current criteria based on the older DVCV 2004.

D. Policy options considered, including alternatives to regulation

Consultation options

Part 1:

4. DHRs can be commissioned in instances of deaths that result from ‘violence, abuse and neglect’. The 2016 DHR statutory guidance^{[footnote 6]} clarified that DHRs could be conducted for DA-related suicides in recognition of the number of victims who die by suicide as a result of DA and the need to better understand and prevent these deaths. The term ‘homicide’ in a DHR can be confusing or problematic for families after their loved one has died by suicide linked to DA. For part one there is no stated preferred option at this stage, the consultation options are as follows:

• Option 1a: Do nothing. This would retain the term ‘homicide’ for all fatalities which fall in scope of a DHR. However, it does not respond to stakeholder concerns that the name does not adequately reflect the circumstances of the death in all circumstances.

• Option 1b: Renaming all DHRs to ‘domestic abuse fatality review’. It would place suicide following DA on the same footing as domestic homicides, which stakeholders are supportive of and reduce the confusion that the existing name creates.

• Option 1c: Allowing the use of ‘domestic abuse fatality review’ for cases of domestic abuse-related deaths that are not homicides whilst retaining the title DHR for domestic homicides. This solution could give families a choice in how to proceed, along with the benefits associated with removing the word ‘homicide’ outlined in Option 1b. The drawback is that it could lead to confusion for CSPs and unintentionally imply some fatalities are more serious than others.

Part 2:

5. Current DVCV 2004 sets out the circumstances when a DHR should be considered, however this does not align with the DA 2021 definition of DA. For part 2 the preferred option is option 2b, the consultation options are as follows:

• Option 2a: Do nothing: Retain the current legislation setting out the circumstances when a DHR should be considered as outlined in the DVCV 2004. This does not reflect the government’s commitment to preventing and tackling DA as it would not resolve confusion around which deaths should be subject to a DHR.

• Option 2b: Update DHR legislation so that a DHR is commissioned for all deaths linked to domestic abuse, as domestic abuse is defined in the DA 2021. The benefits of this option pertain to the criteria for when a DHR is undertaken, better encompassing the range of fatalities which meet the criteria for a DHR. This legislation would ensure that DHRs following homicides which do not align with the DA 2021 definition of DA are not undertaken. The DA 2021 definition of DA ^{[footnote 7]} includes a clause on ‘personally connected’ which makes clear which relationships DA can take place within. This will help to clarify which deaths are in scope for a DHR.

Non-regulatory options

6. As the Tackling DA plan 2022 commits to reform the DHR process any non-regulatory options considered would be controversial.

E. Appraisal

General assumptions and data

7. Internal Home Office data on the average cost of a DHR and the anticipated reduction in DHRs resulting from this proposed legislative change is used to estimate a cost saving for the reduced number of DHRs. It is assumed that the number of DHRs undertaken will remain at 2021/22 levels over a 10-year period. It is also assumed that some homicides would no longer be subject to a DHR and would in future be subject to an offensive weapons homicide review^{[footnote 8]} (OWHR) resulting in no cost saving in these cases.

8. All monetised costs and benefits have been included in 2023/24 prices. Present value (PV) costs have been estimated over a 10-year appraisal period beginning from an assumed implementation start date of March 2024, discounted by the social rate of discount, 3.5% per year^{[footnote 9]}.

Costs

Monetised costs associated with all options 1b, 1c, and 2b

9. There are no expected monetisable costs as a result of any proposed legislative changes. The expected familiarisation costs due to this proposed legislative change will be negligible. Any guidance surrounding potential changes will be rolled out in the update to the DHR statutory guidance^{[footnote 10]} that will be updated with or without legislative change.

Non-monetised costs associated with option 2b.

10. Option 2b would likely result in a reduction in the number of DHRs overall as it is anticipated that the tightening of the criteria for when a DHR should take place will lead to an overall reduction in the number of DHRs. In cases in which a DHR is no longer required, any benefits in terms of learning from those DHRs that would have been realised under DVCV 2004 would no longer be obtained.

Benefits

Monetised benefit associated with option 2b.

Benefits associated with a reduction in the number of DHRs undertaken

11. The DVCV 2004 sets out the circumstances when a DHR should be considered, however this does not align with the DA 2021 definition of DA. The DVCV 2004 specifies that DHRs should be considered in instances where ‘the death of a person aged 16 or over has, or appears to have, resulted from violence, abuse or neglect by: (a) a person to whom he was related or with whom he was or had been in an intimate personal relationship; (b) a member of the same household as himself.’ This means that a DHR can be commissioned in instances where victim and perpetrator were housemates.

12. Under option 2b amended legislation would state that a DHR should be considered where the death of a person aged 16 or over has, or appears to have, resulted from domestic abuse as defined by the DA 2021. This would ensure that DHRs capture and provide learnings into all relevant deaths that are a result of DA and would remove instances where DHRs are commissioned in cases that fall outside of the DA 2021’s definition. This would lead to a small overall reduction in the number of DHRs undertaken. Internal Home Office analysis suggests that the average cost of a DHR is £10,000, and that in the period between October 2021 and September 2022 there were 136 completed DHRs. Of these DHRs, with legislative amendments, 3 would no longer fit the criteria for a DHR. An OWHR may instead take place in such cases if they fit the criteria. Using data on the percentage of homicides in which an offensive weapon is used, it is assumed that in 50% of cases, a homicide will fit the criteria for an OWHR, and no cost saving will be made as a result of a DHR not taking place. For the other 50% of cases no review will take place. When factoring in discounting, it is estimated that the benefit of a reduction in the number of DHRs over a 10-year period would generate an overall saving of £130,000. A breakdown of this analysis is given in Table 1.

Table 1: Option 2b Monetised benefits, £ million, 2023/24 prices

	NPSV [footnote 11]
Benefits
Reduction in DHRs	0.13
Total benefits	0.13
Net benefit	0.13

Source: Home Office internal analysis, 2023. Rounded to nearest £10,000.

Non monetised benefits associated with options 1b and 1c.

Benefits associated with clarity around the name of DHRs.

13. The term ‘homicide’ in a DHR can be confusing or problematic for families after their loved one has died by suicide linked to DA, particularly in the absence of charges or if the abuse was not disclosed to agencies. This issue can be resolved with the renaming of DHRs to adequately reflect that suicides linked to DA are also subject to a DHR.

Non monetised benefits associated with option 2b.

A better dataset resulting from the removal of non-DA related reviews.

14. The inclusion of homicides in circumstances that fall outside of the DA 2021’s definition of domestic abuse in the DHR dataset does not generate meaningful learning about DA. Their removal from the criteria would lead to an improved dataset around DA related fatalities in the future.

Value for money metrics

15. As discussed in the appraisal section, due to the nature of the proposed legislative changes a monetised assessment of the costs and benefits of each option is only available for option 2b.

Total costs and benefits, NPSV, BNPV^{[footnote 12]} and net cost to business

16. It is estimated that option 2b will be associated with a £130,000 cost saving (2023/24 prices) in terms of a reduction in the number of DHRs undertaken. As no other costs or benefits are monetised as such under option 2b, £130,000 is given as the estimate of the total benefits. As there are no estimated costs, total costs sum to zero. As there is no cost to business then both the business net present value (BNPV) and the net cost (EANDCB^{[footnote 13]}:) to business are zero. A full breakdown of the monetised costs and benefits for option 2b is given in table 2.

Table 2: Option 2b NPSV, £ million, 2023/24 prices

	Central
Total benefits (PV)	0.13
Total costs (PV)	0.00
Total NPSV	0.13

Source: Home Office internal analysis, 2023. Rounded to nearest £10,000.

F. Risks

17. There is a risk that removing an explicit reference to ‘neglect’ in the criteria for DHRs could result in some unexplained deaths which are labelled as ‘hidden homicides’ being missed (these are deaths which are reported to the coroner when the cause of death is not known or is unclear). These deaths will be captured through careful wording that states, for example, that ‘the death of a person has or appears to have resulted from domestic abuse’ and can be further clarified in statutory guidance.

18. A decision to make an amendment to the name of DHRs may also be the subject of a legal challenge. HOLA considers that this proposed amendment carries a higher risk than the proposed amendment to the definition, with option 1c (allowing the use of ‘Domestic Abuse Fatality Reviews’ in some cases; and retaining the use of ‘Domestic Homicide Reviews’ in others) carrying the highest risk.

19. In 2016, deaths by suicide where ‘the circumstances give rise to concern’ were included in the scope of the DHR. No additional guidance was provided on what might constitute such ‘concern’, and as a result suicide DHRs have remained ill-defined. It is possible that the proposed changes may lead to an increase in the number of DHRs conducted for DA-related deaths by suicide, as it is possible that these cases are currently under-recorded.

G. Implementation, monitoring and evaluation

20. Any proposed legislative change enacted will happen subject to the outcome of the public consultation. As the impact of any legislative change is anticipated to be small there are no plans for monitoring or evaluation.

Mandatory specific impact test - statutory equalities duties	Complete
Statutory equalities duties

Adding in the definition of DA as per the DA 2021 or amending the name of a DHR will directly discriminate against any people under the age of 16, as DHRs are commissioned when the victim is aged 16 and over. The proposed amendments do not seek to change this. This is a proportionate and justified response as a Child Safeguarding Practice Review would be carried out if the victim of domestic homicide was under the age of 16. The DA 2021 also specifies that behaviour is classed as DA if the persons involved are both over the age of 16. This is different from existing DHR legislation which does not put a parameter on the age of perpetrator. Including the DA 2021 definition would directly discriminate those under 16, although the impact is minimal as there are negligible cases of domestic homicide in which the perpetrator is under the age of 16. Specific reference to the marriage and civil partnership protected characteristic, as in the DA 2021’s definition of DA could be interpreted as direct discrimination, however any DHRs commissioned with an updated definition would add to the knowledge base of how domestic homicide could be prevented.

Yes

1. Business Impact Target is a cross-government target for the reduction of regulation on business. ↩

2. Tackling Domestic Abuse Plan – CP 639 (publishing.service.gov.uk). ↩

3. Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/28/part/1/crossheading/domestic-homicide-reviews. ↩

4. Domestic Abuse Act 2021: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2021/17/part/1/enacted. ↩

5. Victims and Prisoners Bill - Parliamentary Bills - UK Parliament https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3443. ↩

6. Domestic homicide reviews: statutory guidance - GOV.UK: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/revised-statutory-guidance-for-the-conduct-of-domestic-homicide-reviews. ↩

7. Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (legislation.gov.uk) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2021/17/part/1/enacted. ↩

8. Offensive weapons homicide reviews - GOV.UK: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/offensive-weapons-homicide-reviews. ↩

9. The Green Book - publishing.service.gov.uk: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1063330/Green_Book_2022.pdf. ↩

10. Domestic homicide reviews: statutory guidance - GOV.UK: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/revised-statutory-guidance-for-the-conduct-of-domestic-homicide-reviews. ↩

11. NPSV is defined as the present value of benefits less the present value of costs. It provides a measure of the overall impact of an option. ↩

12. BNPV is defined as the present value of benefits less the present value of costs to business. ↩

13. This is defined as the Equivalent Annual Net Direct Cost to Business and is the metric used by the Regulatory Policy Committee (RPC). ↩