Home Office feedback letter - NNC001

Interpersonal Abuse Unit
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF

John Kinloch
Community Safety Lead Officer
North Northamptonshire Council
Bowling Green Road, Kettering
Northamptonshire
NN15 7QX

1 April 2025

Dear John,

Thank you for submitting the Domestic Homicide Review (DHR) report (Imogen) for North Northamptonshire Community Safety Partnership (CSP) to the Home Office Quality Assurance (QA) Panel. The report was considered at the QA Panel meeting on 19 February 2025. I apologise for the delay in responding to you.

The QA Panel felt that this was a very detailed and easy to follow review, and that despite limited contact and involvement with agencies, the engagement with social networks, friends and family helped build a picture of Imogen. They felt that the tribute at the beginning of the review was very moving and heartfelt, and provided a picture of a very bright young woman. There is a real sense of Imogen within the review and the tragic impact her death had on those who knew her.

The QA Panel felt that there are some aspects of the report which may benefit from further revision, but the Home Office is content that on completion of these changes, the DHR may be published.

Areas for final development:

The definition of domestic abuse at the time of Imogen’s death is incorrect - the Domestic Abuse Act had passed in April 2021 so this should be the definition that is used (1.24)
The Equality and Diversity section needs to be further developed as it currently lists Imogen’s protected characteristics but does not discuss how they may have impacted her experiences - further detail and analysis is needed, with particular focus on the 19 year age difference between the victim and perpetrator
The perpetrator was previously married with children, but there is no sense of the impact this separation and if his children had contact or visited him in Northamptonshire
It would be helpful to confirm if Imogen’s younger sibling was invited to contribute to the review and if information was provided about specialist support for young people on being involved with DHRs
3.3 states that the real name of the victim was used throughout the review when a pseudonym was actually used - this should therefore be amended
The key lines of inquiry need to be included within the body of the report
The action plan needs to be completed, as it currently has tracked changes within it
The recommendations could be more specific, specifically around educating the general population and how this could be effectively delivered
There was some confusion from the panel at the statement that the chair had a ‘mentor relationship with a chair with 22 years’ experience’, despite DHRs not beginning until 2011 - please clarify this statement
The dissemination list should be expanded and include the local Police and Crime Commissioner
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

DHR Panel’s position on the Home Office Feedback Points

The Home Office Quality Assurance Panel feedback points are provided in their letter to the CSP dated April 2025. The DHR Panel has considered these points carefully, their position on each is provided below.

The definition of domestic abuse at the time of Imogen’s death is incorrect - the Domestic Abuse Act had passed in April 2021 so this should be the definition that is used (1.24).

The Panel does not think this statement is correct.

Section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 provides a new definition of Domestic Abuse. The Panel’s research shows Sct1 came in to force on 5 July 2021 for certain provision and on 1 October 2021 for all other purposes.

It is the Panel’s view that none of the July 21 provisions apply to any of the circumstances of this DHR.
Imogen died August 2021, it was the previous Domestic Abuse definition that was in use at the time of Imogen’s death and for the whole of the preceding review period. It is the previous definition that is used in the Overview Report.

Decision: No change made

The Equality and Diversity section needs to be further developed as it currently lists Imogen’s protected characteristics but does not discuss how they may have impacted her experiences. Further detail and analysis is needed, with particular focus on the 19-year age difference between the victim and perpetrator.

The Panel agree.
Decision: Section 11 has been significantly amended.

The perpetrator was previously married with children, but there is no sense of the impact this separation and if his children had contact/visited him in Northamptonshire.

The Panel agree.
Decision: Para 1.4.3 amended.

It would be helpful to confirm if Imogen’s younger sibling was invited to contribute to the review and if information was provided about specialist support for young people on being involved with DHRs.

The Panel agree.
Decision: Para 6.4 amended.

3.3 states that the real name of the victim was used throughout the review when a pseudonym was actually used. This should therefore be amended.

The Panel do not think this statement is correct; the review is the process, the report is the written document. Imogen’s real name was used by the Panel throughout the review at the request of her parents (para 3.3).
Imogen is a pseudonym used in the report. This is explained at para 1.1.1

Decision: Para 3.3 amended to make this clearer.

The key lines of inquiry need to be included within the body of the report.

The Panel agree.
Decision: Section 17 amended.

The action plan needs to be completed, as it currently has tracked changes within it.

The Panel agree.
Decision: Action Plan is amended.

The recommendations could be more specific, specifically around educating the general population and how this could be effectively delivered.

The Panel agree.
Decision: Recommendation 3 amended.

There was some confusion from the panel at the statement that the chair had a ‘mentor relationship with a chair with 22 years’ experience’, despite DHRs not beginning until 2011. Please clarify this statement.

The Panel agree.
Decision: Para 9.2 amended.

The dissemination list should be expanded and include the local Police and Crime Commissioner.

The Panel agree.
Decision: Para 12.3 added.

The report requires a thorough proofread prior to publication.

The Panel agree.
Decision: Completed.

Last updated 19 November 2025