Home Office Feedback Letter - DHR NNC004

Interpersonal Abuse Unit
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF

Shaun Sannerude
Safer Communities Officer
Safer Communities Team
North Northamptonshire Council
Cedar Drive, Thrapston
Northamptonshire
NN14 4LZ

19 December 2024

Dear Shaun,

Thank you for resubmitting the report (Aparajitha) for North Northamptonshire Community Safety Partnership to the Home Office Quality Assurance (QA) Panel. The report was reassessed in November 2024.

The QA Panel noted that this is a concise and factual review. They also commented that it was good to see the involvement of an expert on Hindu religion and culture and acknowledged that time has been taken to speak to colleagues and family in India. Information was included about Aparajitha’s life which helped to make the review feel more personal and the tribute provided gives a sense of who Aparajitha was as a daughter, wife, mother and of her career as a nurse.

Condolences were offered to the family, and they were able to choose the pseudonym used. It was also positive that a domestic abuse expert was included on the panel and the report cited some useful research explaining jealousy and coercive control.

The QA Panel noted that some of the issues raised in the previous feedback letter following the first submission have now been addressed. However, there are still some issues outstanding. On completion of these changes the DHR may be published.

Areas for development

Para 20.8 contains the following statement: ‘It is also known from the interview with the review author, that Prakash suspected Aparajitha of having an affair in Saudi Arabia and also had the same suspicion while she was working in Kettering.’ The QA Panel are concerned that this could be perceived as victim blaming. It would be more accurate to say “During interview Prakesh alleged that he suspected Aparajitha of having an affair…. but there is no proof of this and may suggest an attempt to blame his victim for his crime”.
At 20.15 it states “In his interview with the author whilst in prison, Prakash described the events of the night of the murders. An argument started because Aparajitha was dressing the youngest child …” This should be “…Prakash described the alleged events…”
At 6.24: ‘He stated that Aparajitha had made an insulting comment about his mother and also a comment about him being the only male child his parents had…. This he took as being derogatory and stated that had ‘tipped him over the edge’ and he strangled her.’ As above, the Panel feel it would be more appropriate to use the word alleged here.
There is different information in the Executive summary from the Overview report. For example, the Overview report states at 16.5 ‘Prakash said that Aparajitha’s father did not agree with the relationship, and he told Prakash that he should look for an older bride, but his sisters supported him marrying Aparajitha. They married on 9 September 2012. The Executive summary states at 6.3 ‘Aparajitha met Prakash and they married after several years of courting. Prakash states that their meeting was through mistaken text messages. His sisters expressed concern that he was much older than Aparajitha, but Aparajitha, Prakash says, had no such concerns.’ This needs to be resolved.
At 13.9, the sentence ‘There is no evidence to corroborate any of the allegations’ could be considered tantamount to not believing what the victim’s parents said and should be revised.
The QA Panel noted that the issue of potential economic abuse and the role of money could be explored in more detail. For example, at 15.7, Aparajitha’s parents said Prakash would not allow her to call them when she was in the UK, and this is a combination of isolation and economic abuse by restricting her access to resources. In addition, the cultural expert raised that Aparajitha having a steady income larger than the perpetrator’s may have been ‘a point of tension’ (15.18). 20.17 states this issue is ‘interesting’ but that without further information on how finances were managed, it cannot be explored further. The Panel suggested that this could have been discussed in the multiple meetings with the perpetrator. A paragraph could be added to bring these observations together and cover indications of possible financial abuse.
The Points for Consideration at point 7 in the Terms of Reference should be included in the body of the report as per the statutory guidance.
The Equality and Diversity section still requires improvement. It has not specifically, and clearly, identified the applicable protected characteristic for the victim, the children, and the perpetrator, nor is there discussion about any barriers to accessing services, or cultural issues which may have impacted on the case. This should be added.
There is no reference to the DHR Terms of Reference being shared with the Children’s Safeguarding Board to check they met their needs. In the view of
the QA Panel, discussion on the impact of domestic abuse on children is missing and further analysis by the DHR chair and panel of the children’s needs should be added.
A statement is required to confirm the author’s independence.
Paragraph 1.1.3 of the Summary has added the sex of the children and at 6.12. The sex of the children must be removed.
The Contributors to the Review table still identifies the couple’s GP practice name. This must be removed and replaced by ‘Family GP Practice’.
There are still a number of typos and formatting errors in the report that need addressing ahead of publication.
The view of the QA Panel remains the same and they would like this DHR to be published in full and learning disseminated in the usual way.

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 weblink to the site where the report will be published. Please ensure this letter is published alongside the report.

Please send the digital copy and weblink 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 07 March 2025