Home Office Feedback Letter - DHR006

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

6 August 2025

Dear Shaun,

Thank you for resubmitting the report (Florence) for North Northamptonshire Community Safety Partnership to the Home Office Quality Assurance (QA) Panel. The report was reassessed in June 2025.

The QA Panel noted that the author had submitted a reference document outlining the changes made in response to the QA Panel’s feedback, which was helpful. Overall, most of the QA Panel’s feedback has now either been addressed, or an explanation has been provided where that is not the case. Areas that still require amendment are set out below.

There were aspects of the report which the QA Panel felt needed further revision. On completion of these changes, the view of the Panel is that the DHR may now be published as they understand that this has been requested by the family.

Areas of Development

The executive and overview reports cite conflicting train speeds - 95 mph and 125 mph. This discrepancy should be resolved
The report contains some hearsay allegations, which do not appear to have been verified. For instance, Florence claims her boyfriend was arrested in Scotland - something that could have been confirmed via police records. In future DHRs undertaken please ensure that statements such as this are confirmed as accurate
The author advises that recommendations have not been made due to the time elapsed and policy changes. Please include a brief explanation clarifying that such actions are now standard practice
The report currently offers no comment or analysis on the quality of the police investigations or whether any learning was identified. If no learning or recommendations emerged, this should be clearly explained. Notably, paragraph 3.82 states that no risk assessment was undertaken following the alleged attempted murder of Florence, with no mention of safety planning, IDVA involvement, or refuge options.
Paragraph 3.71 remains ambiguous. It’s unclear whether the trip to Amsterdam took place, whether Florence accepted the residential placement mentioned in November 2017, or whether she instead returned to live with her parents. Please clarify this.
The report requires a thorough proofread prior to publication.

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 03 October 2025