Domestic Homicide Review Wellingborough DHR01 - Executive Summary
Executive summary of a Domestic Homicide Review into the circumstances of the death of Patsy aged 63 years in December 2019.
The members of this review panel offer their sincere condolences to the family of Patsy for the sad loss in such tragic circumstances.
The family have chosen the pseudonym Patsy for their mother.
Due to the Perpetrator not engaging in the process, he will be known throughout the report as ‘the Perpetrator’. The Chair and Panel will not choose a pseudonym for the perpetrator.
Introduction
This Domestic Homicide Review (DHR) concerns the death of Patsy, a woman aged 63 years, who was killed by her 69 year ex-husband outside her home. She was shot by a shot gun as she was sitting in her car outside her home in Northamptonshire.
Patsy was found by neighbours. The Police were summoned, and a murder investigation was commenced. Initial enquiries led officers to arrest the Perpetrator. Subsequent investigation led police to a co-accused, a man of 60 years.
Both the Perpetrator and the co-accused were charged with murder. They appeared before Northampton Crown Court and pleaded not guilty to the murder charges. After an 8 week trial, both the Perpetrator and his co-accused were convicted of the murder of Patsy. The Perpetrator was sentenced to Life Imprisonment and ordered to serve a minimum of 31 years. His co-accused was sentenced to Life Imprisonment and ordered to serve a minimum of 27 years.
Summary of events
The scope of this Review is from the 1 January 2017 which is the year Patsy first made contact with The Sunflower Centre, to the date of her death in December 2019.
Patsy’s first contact with The Sunflower Centre was as a result of an incident in May 2017 when she was wounded by the perpetrator.
Two days after the attack, Patsy contacted Voice requesting some support. A DASH form was completed, and she was provided with a personal alarm. A further appointment was made for her to attend The Sunflower Centre on the 8 May 2017.
On that day, Patsy reported to The Sunflower Centre that the perpetrator had gone to her mother’s address where she had been living and demanded £60,000. She told the Sunflower Centre staff that she had told him she did not have the money, he became aggressive and angry and produced a mallet from his jacket.
He hit her over the head with the mallet and as she put her hands up to protect her head, he hit her again and again. (The use of a mallet was disputed at the subsequent trial and there was no evidence found supporting this claim. However, this was Patsy’s version of events).The attack resulted in a head injury that required stitching and a broken finger. Before he left the house, he verbally threatened Patsy’s elderly mother and the victim’s children.
As a result of a Police investigation the perpetrator was charged with wounding with intent. He was tried at Crown Court in March 2018. The jury were not sure of his guilt, and he was acquitted. However, the Court imposed a 5 year Restraining Order preventing him from having any contact with Patsy.
Following the result of the trial, Patsy made a complaint to Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) with the help of the Sunflower Centre stating that no photographs showing her injuries or statements had been shown to the Court. The Police Officer in the case, confirmed that CPS had been provided with the photographs. Patsy requested a ‘Right to Review’ but as the case had gone ahead, this was not possible.
The demand for money emanated from the perpetrator believing that Patsy owed him a substantial amount of money as she had moved in with him into a house he owned. Patsy owned her own property where her daughter and grandsons were living. The husband had paid the mortgage off on Patsy’s house in cash and then demanded she repaid the money. She was having to pay for all of the household bills in the partner’s house as well as larger expenditure such as holidays and shopping.
Patsy disclosed to The Sunflower Centre staff that she was scared of the perpetrator and petrified of some of his acquaintances who she believed to be drug dealers and criminals and would cause her harm at his behest.
The Sunflower Centre arranged a safety plan, and her case was referred to MARAC.
Patsy eventually left the perpetrator and subsequently the victim transferred £53,000 into his bank account but the perpetrator still maintained that she owed him another £63,000.
In 2019, the perpetrator wanted his finances dealt with, so solicitors were instructed, and divorce proceedings commenced. There were two hearings at the County Court, the second being in November 2019 where Patsy was represented by a barrister who recalls Patsy being incredibly nervous. At the end of the hearing, an agreement was reached that the perpetrator would pay her £10,000. Her barrister recalls that she was scared of what the perpetrator would do next.
During the remainder of 2019 Patsy attended her GP on several occasions with stress related illnesses. She had stopped divorce proceedings because of her anxiety and in August 2019, she had lost her job as a financial controller at a local school because she was making mistakes.
In December 2019, a member of the public called the Police saying that they had found Patsy seriously injured in the front seat of her car. Emergency services attended and discovered Patsy had been shot in her car outside her house. A post mortem result showed she died of shotgun injuries. A Police investigation commenced during which the ex-husband and a second man were arrested and charged with the victim’s murder.
Both men appeared before Northampton Crown Court and pleaded not guilty to the murder charges. After a 9 week trial, both the Perpetrator and his co-accused were convicted of the murder of Patsy. The Perpetrator was sentenced to Life Imprisonment and ordered to serve a minimum of 31 years. His co-accused was sentenced to Life Imprisonment and ordered to serve a minimum of 27 years.
Analysis
The Overview Report sets out the definition of Controlling and Coercive Behaviour as set out in the Serious Crimes Act 2015 and the facts illustrate numerous examples of the perpetrator being controlling and coercive towards her.
Patsy moved in with the perpetrator very soon after meeting him. He paid off the mortgage on Patsy’s house and he expected her to re-pay him by paying all of the household bills in his house. He soon became obsessed with money. Patsy thought about leaving him, but she was fearful of what he would do especially about the financial situation she was in.
However, in November 2016, Patsy left the perpetrator saying that she could no longer afford to pay the bills at his house. By January 2017, Patsy had become ill and attended her GP who prescribed anti-depressants. She lost a great deal of time from work due to her illnesses.
During her visits to her GP there is no evidence to suggest that she was signposted to any domestic abuse support services in accordance with guidance issues by the Royal College of General Practitioners. Subsequent to this review the GP practice has taken steps to improve its position with regard to conforming to the guidance and being more proactive in supporting victims of domestic abuse. Indeed, the Domestic Homicide Review Panel make the following recommendation.
Recommendations
All Northamptonshire Clinical Commissioning Group’s to ensure that GP surgeries have a policy for domestic abuse which covers:
- promoting engagement of patients subject to domestic abuse through posters etc.
- recognising alerting features, when and how to ask questions
- coding safeguarding relevant information in line with Royal College General Practitioners guidance
- how risk is assessed and managed through shared care with other local domestic abuse agencies
- how continuity of care is facilitated in a way that keeps the victim safe
- actions required to protect children and the policy has been embedded into practice through staff training
Patsy visited Northampton General Hospital and Kettering General Hospital on several occasion between 2013 and 2015 for routine appointments, but there is no mention that any ‘routine enquiries’ were made with her about her home circumstances or any possibility of domestic abuse taking place within her relationship. Routine enquiries are an expected practice with all health professionals and there was a missed opportunity to expose abuse and provide a pathway to support.
Northampton General Hospital and Kettering General Hospital to assure the North Northamptonshire Community Safety Partnership that routine enquiry into domestic abuse is embedded into training, policy and procedure.
The Sunflower Centre had significant dealings with Patsy and offered her effective support in target hardening and especially with regard to helping her with the complaint she made to CPS, which is described in detail in the Overview Report.
Patsy attended the Freedom Programme with NDAS between 24 April 2018 and 27 June 2018 and attended 9 out of 10 sessions. She also received good service from NDAS.
The Overview author wrote to CPS asking for an account of their actions during the trial of the perpetrator for assaulting Patsy and their policy regarding prosecuting domestic abuse cases. The Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor sent a comprehensive reply in which he states that some changes had been made and describes the present-day arrangements for dealing with domestic abuse cases. In summary the main points of the letter are:
- All CPS prosecutors received training in domestic abuse
- There is now a team of specialist DA Prosecutors who review and prosecute a high proportion of DA case
- Prosecutions of DA cases are before Specialist Training Magistrates
- Any agent lawyer used to prosecute DA cases are also trained in domestic abuse
- In Crown Court there is a similar situation with the use of trained Counsel
- There has been an improvement of the quality of information provided to Listing Officers about specific witness issues in DA cases
- To assist with the back log of DA cases, a Nightingale Court has been established in Nottingham.
The Police IMR indicates that the dealings with Patsy were in accordance with policies and procedures apart from two issues. Officers did not submit a PPN, (Public Protection Notice) with regard to Patsy’s elderly mother the grandchildren following the mallet attack on Patsy in May 2017, although a PPN was submitted with regard to Patsy.
The second issue concerned apparent confusion regarding the submission of a Domestic Violence Protection Notice (DVPN) and Domestic Violence Protection Order (DVPO). The confusion arose between the officer in the case and a more senior officer.
Although the Northamptonshire Police web site does contain information and advice for all staff, the IMR author established that there was no recent reminder to officers regarding the use of these notices and orders.
It was initially considered that there were two recommendations that needed to be made to improve these two issues.
However, after looking into changes of policies and procedures since the time of events of this review, it appears that there has been significant improvements made in both of these areas of work.
Firstly, regarding Public Protection Notices, the panel member from Northamptonshire Police is satisfied that the policy for using Public Protection Notices has been fully reviewed, updated and communicated. In addition, extensive work has been undertaken to raise awareness of the importance of Public Protection Notices. Officers are now issued with a vulnerability guide when they complete their initial training, which is also available electronically.
Vulnerability is key in the training provided. The force ran “Operation Marvel” which was focussed on safeguarding and is now running the “Look Closer” campaign which is focussed on professional curiosity. The submission of PPNs is scrutinised through audit process and we now see far more submitted.
Secondly, with regard to DVPNs and DVPOs, the Police panel member is content hat extensive work has already been undertaken to raise awareness of the importance of using DVPN’s applying for DVPO’s monitoring compliance and taking positive action in relation to any breaches. Guidance on how to apply for them is readily available on the intranet and articles have been published on the intranet reminding staff of the importance of them. They are considered as part of supervisor reviews of investigations and custody Sergeant’s decision making when releasing a suspect from custody.
A process has also been introduced to monitor compliance with them and ensure support is put in place for victims alongside the order. Northamptonshire Police performs well compared to other forces in terms of the number of notices issues, orders applied for, and arrests made for breaches. Domestic abuse is one of four priorities for the force. Performance in relation to the use of orders is constantly scrutinised and the activity is driven through a Domestic Abuse Delivery Board.
The DHR panel is reassured that the issues raised through discussion have been adequately addressed by Northamptonshire Police and consider that there is no need for any further recommendations for the police.
In addition to the changes made by Northamptonshire Police, improvements to the structure of investigating domestic abuse have been made by increasing the size of the DAPIT (Domestic Abuse Prevention and Investigation Team). This will ensure an increase in supervision of all high risk and all such crimes are reviewed promptly once reported and also before filing.
This is to ensure that safeguarding has been appropriately managed, and the standard of investigations increases. In addition, the supervisors are now auditing standard and medium risk investigations.
Reference is made of the fact that the perpetrator fitted a tracking device to Patsy’s car and removed it while the car went in for service, presumably so that the device would not be noticed.
The fitting of a tracker for surveillance purposes is in most cases a legitimate process. Tracking deliveries, tracking the speed commercial vehicles are travelling at as well as a whole range of other accepted reason for a tracker to be fitted.
However, as described above surveillance of partners in domestic abuse is increasing and is aided by technology.
Thinking of a preventative measure, the author made contact with the National Association of Body Repairers (NABR) which has thousands of body repairers and mechanics as affiliated members. The CEO of that organisation was eager to help with regard to this issue and was willing to allow NDAS, Northamptonshire Police and other panel members to create an information package to be included in the association’s magazine which is distributed to all of its members.
The message included advice to body repairers and mechanics that if they find a tracker fitted to a vehicle, especially a private motor car, they should inform the owner or person with the vehicle accordingly. This will give that person an opportunity to seek advice and support especially if they were unaware of the device being fitted. The message also included general domestic abuse advice, signposting to support agencies and general awareness information.
Northamptonshire Domestic Abuse Service (NDAS) continue to engage with the National Association of Body Repairers (NABR) to progress the advice to repairers and mechanics to alert drivers of vehicles when tracker devices are identified particularly on private motor cars.
There are no single agency recommendations identified.
Conclusions
This case demonstrates the persistence of the perpetrator to control Patsy from a very early stage in their relationship. The removal of Patsy from her family ties and the financial control he had over her, are typical of a controlling and coercive partner.
Patsy for her part did take that leap and leave the perpetrator, only to be viciously attacked by him a short time later. That incident and the subsequent acquittal of the perpetrator, lead to a great deal anguish for Patsy and a feeling in her mind that she was not believed.
CPS have reviewed procedures regarding the prosecution of offenders for domestic abuse offences and since changes have been made, CPS are now content that their procedures are sensitive to the needs of domestic abuse victims.
There then followed a Civil Court hearing during which the perpetrator was ordered to pay Patsy a considerable amount of money which no doubt was the catalyst for him actions in killing her.
Patsy received support from an IDVA following a MARAC meeting in 2017 and again in 2018 Patsy received IDVA support from the Sunflower Centre as well as attending the Freedom Programme through NDAS. The support she got from these agencies was described as being good.
Patsy’s attendance at her GP showed a lack of opportunity to make referrals regarding domestic abuse in accordance with guidance from the General Practitioners Counsel.
27 February 2024
Shaun Sannerude
Community Development Officer (Designated Safeguarding Lead)
Safer Communities Team
North Northamptonshire Council
Cedar Drive,
Thrapston,
Northamptonshire,
NN14 4LZ
Dear Shaun, Thank you for resubmitting the report (Patsy) for North Northamptonshire Community Safety Partnership to the Home Office Quality Assurance (QA) Panel. The report was reassessed in February 2024.
The QA Panel is grateful for sight of your report, and for the clear sympathy expressed to the victim’s family. It is helpful to see the specific recommendation about vehicle mechanics looking out for tracking devices which may be evidence of stalking.
However, the following require attention:
- The overview report and executive summary supplied still contain some page and paragraph numbering errors and inconsistencies
- Pages 49 and 50 in the main report are blank and should be removed
- There is still a visible red diagonal line on every page of the overview and executive summary which could detract readers if not properly removed from the final published version
The QA Panel noted that most of the issues raised in the previous feedback letter following the first submission have now been addressed.
The view of the Home Office is that the DHR may now be published.
Once completed the Home Office would be grateful if you could provide us with a digital copy of the revised final version of the report with all finalised attachments and appendices and the web link to the site where the report will be published. Please ensure this letter is published alongside the report.
Please send the digital copy and web link to [email protected]. This is for our own records for future analysis to go towards highlighting best practice and to inform public policy.
The DHR report including the executive summary and action plan should be converted to a PDF document and be smaller than 20 MB in size; this final Home Office QA Panel feedback letter should be attached to the end of the report as an annex; and the DHR Action Plan should be added to the report as an annex. This should include all implementation updates and note that the action plan is a live document and subject to change as outcomes are delivered.
Please also send a digital copy to the Domestic Abuse Commissioner at [email protected].
On behalf of the QA Panel, I would like to thank you, the report chair and author, and other colleagues for the considerable work that you have put into this review.
Yours sincerely,
Home Office DHR Quality Assurance Panel
Last updated 30 July 2024