1

PAN DORSET DOMESTIC HOMICIDE REVIEW LOCAL PROTOCOL

2

CONTENTS SECTION A - INTRODUCTION 3-7 1. Introduction 3-4 2. Purpose of a Domestic Homicide Review 4 3. Roles and Responsibilities 5 4. Timescales for Conducting a Review 6 5. Involvement with friend, family members and other support networks 6 6. Data Storage 7

SECTION B–SCOPING PROCESS 8-9 7. Notification 8 8. Information Sharing 8 9. Decision whether to review 8 10. Home Office response 9

SECTION C- CONDUCTING A FULL DOMESTIC HOMICIDE REVIEW 10-13 11. Establishing a Review Panel 10 12. Role of the Review Panel Chair 10-11 13. Role of the Overview Report Writer 11 14. Consideration of other reviews 11 15. Domestic Homicide Review process 11-13

SECTION D - QUALITY ASSURANCE BY HOME OFFICE QUALITY ASSURANCE PANEL AND DISSEMINATION OF LESSONS LEARNT 14-16 16. Quality Assurance and Sign Off Process 14 17. Dissemination of Lessons Learnt 14 18. Implementing and Monitoring Recommendations 14 19. Publication of the Overview Report 15 20. Review of the protocol 15 21. Quality Assurance, Sign Off and Action Planning Process 16

APPENDICES 17-42 DOC1 Notification of potential DHR 17 DOC2 Scoping letter to relevant agencies 18-19 DOC3 Letter requesting IMRs 20-23 DOC4 First Letter to family/friends 24 DOC5 Second Letter to family/friends 25 DOC6 Letter to Perpetrator 26 DOC7 Terms of Reference for Review Panel 27-29 DOC8 Job Description for Overview Report Author 30 DOC9 Job Description for Panel Chair 31-32 DOC10 Format for Overview Report 33-36 DOC11 Format for Action Plan 37 DOC12 Home Office Data Collection Sheet 38 DOC13 Format for Publication Briefing 38-42

3

SECTION A- INTRODUCTION

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHRs) were established on a statutory basis from 13 April 2011, under Section 9, Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act (2004).

1.2 The revised Multi-Agency Statutory Guidance for the Conduct of Domestic

Homicide Reviews 2016 states a DHR is a review of the circumstances in which 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, or (b) a member of the same household, held with a view to identifying the lessons to be learnt from the death.

1.3 In cases where a victim took their own life (suicide) and the circumstances give

rise to concern, a review should be undertaken. 1.4 This protocol outlines the approach being taken across Bournemouth, Dorset and

Poole in meeting this statutory requirement. It aims to supplement and not replace the full revised Multi Agency Statutory Guidance for the Conduct of Domestic Homicide Reviews issued by the Home Office in December 2016. Both the national guidance and this pan Dorset protocol should be used together in all cases.

1.5 Statutory guidance indicates it is the duty of any ‘person or body establishing or

participating in a DHR’ to have regard to the Home Office Guidance. As of 13 April 2011, the requirements for initiating and undertaking a DHR are the responsibility of the Community Safety Partnership (CSP) in which ‘the victim was normally resident’ or where ‘the victim was last known to have frequented.’

1.6 Agencies required to participate under the above statutory guidance in any DHR

are:

Chief Officers of Police

Local Authorities (Borough, District, Unitary and County Councils)

Clinical Commissioning Groups

Providers of Probation Services

NHS trusts These agencies will be referred to as specified bodies in this document in accordance with terms used in 2004 legislation.

4

1.7 Other relevant agencies may be required to participate in the DHR at the request of the review panel.

1.8 A separate legal agreement has been put in place regarding the funding

arrangements for a DHR. The Lead Officer will request the funding contributions from those specified agencies named within the terms of the agreement when the Home Office are notified of the CSP’s intention to conduct a DHR.

1.9 This agreed protocol aims to give clarity regarding the process itself and also the

roles and responsibilities of the officers/partnerships in that process. 2. THE PURPOSE OF A DHR 2.1 The purpose of a DHR is to:

establish what lessons are to be learned from the domestic homicide regarding the way in which local professionals and organisations work individually and together to safeguard victims;

identify clearly what those lessons are both within and between agencies, how and within what timescales they will be acted on, and what is expected to change as a result;

apply these lessons to service responses including changes to inform national and local policies and procedures as appropriate;

prevent domestic violence and homicide and improve service responses for all domestic violence and abuse victims and their children by developing a co-ordinated multi-agency approach to ensure that domestic abuse is identified and responded to effectively at the earliest opportunity;

contribute to a better understanding of the nature of domestic violence and abuse; and

highlight good practice.

5

3. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 3.1 The below table provides a summary of the roles and responsibilities of those

involved in the conduct of DHRs1.

Community Safety Partnership

The CSP has the statutory responsibility for undertaking DHRs. The CSP will agree timescales for the review and amendments to those timescales, agree the content of and sign off the Overview Report and accompanying reports prior to submission to the Home

Office, agree the recommendations regarding publication, provide a copy of the report to relevant parties and monitor progress against the action plan.

Chair of the Community Safety Partnership

The Chair of the CSP holds responsibility for establishing whether a homicide is to be subject of a DHR. This decision is taken in consultation with local partners. The Chair will also agree the details of the publication process.

CSP Lead Officer

The CSP Lead Officer will be the single point of contact for the reviews and ensure the DHR complies with statutory requirements, liaise with the CSP Chair and will lead regarding liaison with the Home Office on behalf of the Chair. The officer will provide advice and guidance to the Chair of the Review Panel (where needed) and facilitate the engagement of an independent overview report author on behalf of the CSP (based on advice from the review panel). The CSP Lead Officer, on behalf of the panel, will also establish whether a parallel SCR/SAR process or other relevant reviews are being considered.

Dorset Police Dorset Police will formally advise the relevant CSP Chair, in writing using DOC 1 when a domestic homicide has occurred and will have a key role throughout the DHR process including liaison with the Senior Investigating Officer, Coroner’s Office, CPS and Family Liaison Officer.

Dorset Police Partnership Officer (PPHQ)

The Partnership Officer will provide administrative support to the Chair of the Review Panel including organising meetings, taking minutes and distributing correspondence.

Independent Domestic Abuse Expert

The Expert will act as the expert on the panel regarding domestic abuse and provide the links with specialist domestic abuse services.

1 The role of the Review Panel Chair and Independent Overview Author are referred to under Section C of the protocol.

6

Chair of the Safeguarding Adult Review Sub Group

The Chair of the relevant Safeguarding Adult Review Sub Group will ensure the overview report is quality assured by the Safeguarding Adult Review Sub Group and ensure that those responsible to protect vulnerable adults consider if any safeguarding action is needed.

Safeguarding Board Lead Officer

The officer will ensure the Safeguarding Adult Review Sub-Group is sighted on the final overview report for quality assurance purposes.

4 TIMESCALES FOR CONDUCTING A DOMESTIC HOMICIDE REVIEW

4.1 The decision on whether or not to proceed with a DHR must be taken by the Chair of the CSP within one month of a homicide coming to their attention.

4.2 The final Overview Report should be completed within a further six months of

the decision to proceed with a DHR, unless an alternative timescale is agreed with the CSP. It may be that the complexity of case does not become apparent until the review is in progress and this could affect the ability of the review to report within the set period. The CSP should be kept regularly informed of progress by the lead officer for the CSP on the Review Panel.

4.3 Paragraphs 48-50 of Section 5 of the Statutory Guidance provide further details

if the panel is considering waiting for the conclusion of criminal proceedings before commencing a review.

5. INVOLVEMENT WITH FRIENDS, FAMILY MEMBERS AND OTHER SUPPORT

NETWORKS

5.1 The Review Panel should determine the appropriateness of involving friends, family or other support networks in the DHR process. However, unless there are exceptional circumstances such as Honour Based Abuse issues, these individuals should be given ‘every opportunity to contribute.’ The Review Panel should also consider on-going risk in involving the individuals who may be witnesses, especially where Honour Based Violence in suspected.

5.2 It is essential to ensure no approach is made to potential witnesses, or people

involved in the case without the knowledge of the Senior Investigating Officer (SIO) and, where appropriate, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). Consideration should also be given to working with Family Liaison Officers (FLOs) deployed by police as part of the investigation.

5.3 The panel could also consider using the Victim Support Homicide Service to act

as the single point of contact and offer specialist support to the family.

7

5.4 Template letters to family/friends and the perpetrator are contained in DOCs 4, 5 and 6.

6. DATA STORAGE

6.1 In all cases the documentation relating to the initial review and any full DHR will be stored securely by CSP Lead Officer for five years after the date the overview report and executive summary are placed on the CSP website. If the CSP agreed not to publish the report the documentation will be stored for five years after clearance from the Home Office Quality Assurance Panel.

6.2 The date from which the period starts will be formally recorded by the CSP Lead

Officer.

8

SECTION B–SCOPING PROCESS

*The nominated officer from the specified body should not have had any direct involvement in the case or have had

any management oversight for practitioners in the case.

9. DECISION

Nominated Officers from the specified bodies* will consider the evidence for a full DHR and/or other action . This will involve considering any other statutory reviews that may be taking place and will take into account issues relating to disclosure. The CSP Lead Officer will forward their recommendation to the Chair of the CSP. The CSP Chair makes decision on whether to hold full DHR and CSP lead officer informs the Home Office.

8. INFORMATION SHARINGThe CSP Lead Officer asks Dorset Police Partnership Coordinator (PPHQ) to request information from relevant agencies using standard letter (DHR 2). Partner agencies in receipt of the letter secure files and provide initial information to Dorset Police Partnership Coordinator (PPHQ) within 5 working days. The information is forwarded to the CSP Lead Officer. The CSP Lead Officer will also inform the lead officers for the Safeguarding Boards to ascertain if other reviews are taken place.

7. NOTIFICATION

Dorset Police formally notifies the CSP lead officer that a potential domestic homicide has occurred.

CSP lead officer informs the CSP Chair and initiates the initial scoping process.

Within

1 m

onth

of

notification

9

10. HOME OFFICE RESPONSE 10.1 If the Home Office agrees with recommendations not to hold a review no

further action will be required. The family will be notified of this decision. 10.2 In the event that the Home Office disagrees with the recommendation it will be

referred to the Secretary of State to overturn the decision. If it is overturned the CSP Chair will notify the CSP Lead Officer to carry out a full DHR in accordance with the statutory guidance to be completed within 6 months of the date of notification from the Home Office.

10

SECTION C - CONDUCTING A FULL DOMESTIC HOMICIDE REVIEW

11 ESTABLISHING A DOMESTIC HOMICIDE REVIEW PANEL 11.1 The DHR panel will have the following standing membership:

Chief Officers of Police

Local Authorities (Borough, District, Unitary and County Councils)

Clinical Commissioning Groups

Providers of Probation Services

NHS trusts

Lead Officer for Community Safety Partnership

Representation from specialist domestic abuse service

11.2 Based on the scoping exercise the DHR panel will consider whether any additional persons/bodies should be invited to be a member of the panel.

11.3 Colleagues from Children’s Services and or the Safeguarding Children Board will be invited where there are children and parallel or overlapping processes.

11.4 The CSP Lead Officer will consider and recommend a Chair for the panel to the

Chair of the CSP to agree.

11.5 Where possible, it is recommended the DHR Panel Chair should be independent of the operational agencies involved in the domestic homicide case being considered and should not be a member of the CSP. A job description for the DHR Panel Chair is provided in DOC 9. Consideration should be given of developing reciprocal arrangements between local authorities.

11.6 To ensure clear governance arrangements the DHR Panel Chair should not be the Chair of any of the partnerships that may later consider the review for quality or sign off.

11.7 The Panel will be responsible for managing and coordinating the review process. The officers must be sufficiently senior to have the authority to commit on behalf of their agency to decisions made at a panel meeting.

11.8 All members of the DHR Panel need to have direct access to a secure email system, e.g. registering for criminal justice secure mail, nhs.net, gsi.gov.uk, pnn or GCSX. Confidential information must not be sent through any other email system.

11.9 The Panel need to consider involvement of the family from the outset in accordance with the statutory guidance.

11

12. ROLE OF THE DHR PANEL CHAIR 12.1 The Chair of the DHR Panel will be responsible for coordinating the review, setting

meetings, prioritising the involvement of family, friends and other support networks, keeping to timescales and ensuring the final overview report is of a satisfactory quality. The Chair will be actively assisted by the DHR Panel.

12.2 The skills and abilities and specific activities the role is expected to deliver are

detailed in DOC 9. 12.3 The DHR Panel Chair should, where possible, be an experienced individual who

is not directly associated with any of the agencies involved in the review. 12.4 The DHR Panel Chair will have access to legal advice as necessary during the

review period. 12.5 The DHR Panel Chair will present the Overview Report and accompanying

documents to the CSP. 13. ROLE OF THE OVERVIEW REPORT AUTHOR 13.1 An Overview Report Author will be appointed to bring together the IMR’s,

facilitate engagement with the family, friends of the victim and perpetrator (where appropriate) and draw overall conclusions and recommendations in a final written report. A job description for the Overview Report Author is contained in the appendix entitled DOC 8.

13.2 The contract of engagement should be based on the terms of reference of the

review with clear timescales and costs for delivering the report. The appointment and contractual agreement will be overseen by the CSP Lead Officer.

14. CONSIDERATION OF OTHER REVIEWS 14.1 Where there are possible grounds for a Domestic Homicide Review and a

Safeguarding Adults Review or Safeguarding Children Serious Case Review, Multi Agency Public Protection Review, Mental Health Service Review and/or other such formal review processes, then a decision should be made at the outset by the decision makers involved as to which process is to lead, who is to take which role, and who is to chair with a final joint report being taken to the necessary commissioning bodies. Whether some of the reviews can be commissioned jointly may be considered so as to reduce duplication of work for organisations involved.

12

15. DOMESTIC HOMICIDE REVIEW PROCESS

15.1 Initial meeting of the DHR Panel to:-

Consider initial scoping information

Write terms of reference (DOC 7)

Appoint Overview Author

List which agencies are required to submit IMRs2

Establish time scales within which the review process should be completed

Consider engagement of friends, family of the victim

15.2 DHR Panel to review IMRs3

This meeting is a formal information sharing session where the review panel will

Query and comment on the IMRs presented

Seek clarification and raise queries with the IMR authors regarding the reports

Task the overview author with writing an initial draft of the overview report (template provided in DOC 10)

15.3 Review Panel to consider draft Overview Report

The review panel will:-

Consider a draft initial report from the Overview Author which brings together Individual Management Reviews and family views (where appropriate) to form Overview report

Draws conclusions and agree final report with recommendations

Develop a SMART action plan based on report (template provided in DOC 11)

15.4 On completion, the anonymised Overview Report and action plan will be presented to the Safeguarding Adult Review Sub Group who will -

Quality assure the report and associated action plan

Give feedback to the CSP making recommendations for change

Ensure senior officers for safeguarding are sighted on the reports contents

Ensure that those responsible to vulnerable adults can consider if any SAB actions are required.

2 The CSP Lead Officer will request the IMRs following the meeting giving a 6 week deadline for submission. 3The IMR Authors and Overview Report Author would also attend this meeting.

13

PRODUCING OVERVIEW REPORT

Report author brings together IMRs including combined chronology and family/friends views where appropriate to

form overview report.

Draws conclusions and recommendations for the panel to consider.

Panel considers the overview report and develops an action plan.

The report is presented to the Safeguarding Adult Review Group to quality assure (see para 15.4).

CONSIDERATION OF IMRs

IMRs, including individual choronology , to be produced within 6 weeks. The panel query and comment on the IMRs presented, seek clarification and raise queries with the IMR

authors.

The Panel task the overview author with writing an initial draft of the overview report.

THE REVIEW PANEL

The DHR Panel has a standing membership. Consideration will be given to additional panel

members based on the initial scoping exercise. The CSP Lead Officer will consider a Chair for the panel

and make a recommendation to the Chair of the CSP.

Dorset Police Partnership Officer convenes the DHR Panel. In the initial meeting the DHR panel considers initial scoping information, write ToR, appoint overview author, list agencies for IMRs, set timescales for the review, and considers engagement with family/friends.

Wit

hin

6 m

on

ths

of

de

cisi

on

to

re

vie

w

14

SECTION D - QUALITY ASSURANCE BY HOME OFFICE QUALITY ASSURANCE PANEL AND DISSEMINATION OF LESSONS LEARNT

16. SIGN OFF PROCESS

16.1 The anonymised overview report, executive summary and action plan will be presented by the Chair of the DHR Panel to the CSP to agree the content and for sign off.

16.2 If the CSP is satisfied with the reports and action plan the CSP Lead Officer will

forward to the Home Office Quality Assurance Panel along with the Home Office data collection form (DOC 12)

17. DISSEMINATION OF LESSONS LEARNT 17.1 The Community Safety Partnerships have lead responsibility for ensuring

lessons are learnt from DHRs. 17.2 Following a DHR the CSP Lead Officer will develop a process for the

dissemination of learning which will be agreed by the Chair of the Partnership. 17.3 As each DHR will have a unique set of findings, recommendations and actions, a

bespoke approach to the dissemination of learning will need to be developed for each DHR. This may use existing mechanisms for sharing information or develop new opportunities to share learning.

17.4 The Home Office should be informed of the decision to disseminate learning if it

is necessary to complete this ahead of the Quality Assurance process at the Home Office.

17.5 Subsequent learning should be disseminated to the MARAC, other multi-agency

groups, the Safeguarding Adult Board, the Local Safeguarding Children Board and commissioners of services, where appropriate.

18. IMPLEMENTING AND MONITORING RECOMMENDATIONS 18.1 The Community Safety Partnership will ensure that all recommendations are

actioned and will request updates from agencies/partnerships. 18.2 The Community Safety Partnership will, where possible, utilise and work with

existing partnership groups i.e. MARAC Steering Group, Domestic Abuse Strategic Group, Safeguarding Boards, to deliver shared actions.

15

18.3 The Action Plan will remain on the CSP agenda until such time as all recommendations have been implemented and sustainable improvements achieved.

19. PUBLICATION OF THE OVERVIEW REPORT 19.1 The Home Office recommends that in all cases the Overview Report and

Executive Summaries should be published unless there are compelling reasons why this should not happen, for example where the welfare of children or other persons directly concerned may be affected.

19.2 Publication can only take place following agreement from the Quality Assurance

Group at the Home Office and should be published on the CSP web site. 19.3 The family, and other relevant persons, will be given an opportunity to view the

report prior to publication and will be involved in the publication process where appropriate. A copy of the Overview Report and accompanying reports will be given to the Police and Crime Commissioner and senior manager of each participating agency.

19.4 A template for a publication briefing has been produced in DOC 13.

20 REVIEW OF THE PROTOCOL

20.1 This protocol will be reviewed as a minimum every three years.

16

ACTION PLANNING

The recommendations from the report will form part of the action plan (see Appendix DOC 5) which

accompanies the report.

The Action plan will have clear time limited actions for individuals and agencies.

The action plan will remain on the CSP agenda until such time as all of the recommendations have been

implemented.

SIGN OFF AND PUBLICATION

Once cleared by the Home Office Quality Assurance Panel a publication process will be established which involves the nominated officers from the specified bodies and others as appropriate. See Appendix DOC 6

QUALITY ASSURANCE

The anonymised overview report, executive summary and action plan will be presented by the Chair of the DHR

Panel to the CSP to agree the content and for sign off.

The CSP lead officer will then forward the report to the Home Office Quality Assurance Panel

17

APPENDICES

DOC 1 NOTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL DHR Notification of potential DHR to lead officer for CSP

Name of person requesting consideration of review:

Job Title:

Organisation

Address:

Contact No:

E-mail:

Brief Details of Incident.

Date Details

(Continue on a separate sheet if necessary.) Please include details of how the incident meets the criteria of a Domestic Homicide Review (see over page).

Other agencies known to be involved in case: Any other information you feel is relevant: Signed: Print Name: Date:

18

DOC 2 SCOPING LETTER TO RELEVANT AGENCIES

Dear Colleague, Consideration of a Domestic Homicide Review As you are aware, Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHR) are part of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act (2004) and became law from the 13th April 2011. The purpose of a DHR is to establish what lessons can be learned from the domestic homicide regarding the way in which local professionals and organisations work individually or together to safeguard victims and to prevent future guidance. The revised Multi-Agency Statutory Guidance for the Conduct of Domestic Homicide Reviews 2016 states a DHR is a review of the circumstances in which 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, or

(b) a member of the same household as himself,

held with a view to identifying the lessons to be learnt from the death. Locally, Name of Partnership Community Safety Partnership (CSP) has overall responsibility for determining whether such a review should take place in the event of a homicide, and overseeing subsequent reports and actions. The Chair of Dorset CSP holds responsibility for establishing whether a homicide is to be the subject of a DHR. Sadly the Chair of the CSP has been recently informed of an incident which may necessitate a DHR and I am writing on their behalf to - 1. Establish whether your organisation has any record of contact with the following individuals and/or address: Victim: Date of Birth: Address at time of death: Suspect: Date of Birth: Address:

19

2. Request that your organisation secure and preserve these records immediately 3. Ask your organisation to respond stating:

a) Whether you have records of contact with either party or indeed have no records available. A reply is required, even if it will be a nil response b) Supply a Single Point of Contact (SPOC) for future correspondence

What will happen to this information? The information will be shared with the Chair of the CSP when considering whether the incident meets the criteria for a DHR. It will also be shared with the specified bodies named under Section 9 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 required to establish and participate in a review. In due course a full Individual Management Report may also be required. Information sharing and the Data Protection Act (DPA) 1998 Please be assured that all information received will be treated as OFFICIAL SENSITIVE and will only be used for the purpose stated. The DPA explicitly allows the release of confidential personal information, even where consent is refused, for “the prevention … of crime” (S 29). DHRs are explicitly intended to learn lessons to prevent homicides in the future and come squarely within this section. In reaching a decision to release information under the DPA, the principles under the Act need to be applied. The main point is that only relevant and accurate information is shared for a specific and legitimate reason. The processes used in a DHR ensure this is achieved. There is a strict legislative timescale for this process, therefore, I would appreciate your response no later than date to be inserted. Please send you responses to the following email address PPHQ@Dorset.PNN.Police.uk, marked as OFFICIAL SENSITIVE. Many thanks for your assistance in this matter. Yours sincerely, DHR Lead Officer On Behalf of the Chair of the name to be inserted Community Safety Partnership

20

DOC 3 LETTER REQUESTING IMRS Dear , Ref: DHR XX As you will be aware the Dorset Community Safety Partnership (CSP) has concluded that the death of name to be inserted on date to be inserted meets the criteria for a Domestic Homicide Review (DHR). DHRs were established on a statutory basis under section 9 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act (2004). This provision came into force on 13th April 2011. The process now requires your agency to complete an Individual Management Review (IMR) and a comprehensive chronology. The Home Office have produced statutory guidance regarding the conduct of domestic homicide reviews which can be found here. Section 7 of this guidance gives further information about the content of IMRs and should be read in advance of completing your agency’s IMR. At the DHR Panel meeting held on date to be inserted, it was agreed the IMRs would cover those individuals named in the attached genograms using the IMR and chronology templates. The IMR should cover the period from date to be inserted to date to be inserted, subject to any information emerging that prompts a review of earlier incidents or events that are relevant. The aim of the IMR is to:

allow agencies to look openly and critically at individual and organisational practice and the context within which professionals were working (culture, leadership, supervision, training, etc.) to see whether the homicide indicates that practice needs to be changed or improved to support professionals to carry out their work to the highest standards.

identify how and when those changes or improvements will be brought about.

identify examples of good practice within agencies. In order to standardise responses please read the attached guidance and use the IMR and chronology templates provided. In addition please ensure that the report and chronology is anonymised in relation to all individuals involved including professionals (e.g. Doctor Smith should be DoctorS, or Joe Bloggs should read JB). The Independent Overview Review author, name to be inserted, would welcome the opportunity to discuss their expectations of your IMR in more detail by phone. Please contact name to be inserted, on number to be inserted to arrange a suitable time. Please can you ensure that your completed IMR is returned by date to be inserted. Yours sincerely, Independent Chair of the Domestic Homicide Review Panel

21

Guidance for the Completion of Individual Management Reviews4 Introduction (To be provided by DHR Panel) A short paragraph will be inserted stating the reason for the review. It will enable the reader to understand why a DHR has been commissioned. Terms of Reference (To be provided by DHR Panel) Genogram– (To be provided by DHR Panel) IMR Author details This should provide further information about the author (name, job title) and must provide a clear statement that illustrates their independence from the line management of and supervision of staff involved in the case. It should identify the sources of information used to prepare the IMR (e.g. analysis of case records, interviews with staff etc.). Details of Parallel Reviews/Processes Please detail any other reviews that have been or will be undertaken in relation to the named individuals e.g. serious case review. Chronology of Agency Involvement The author should complete the attached spreadsheet giving a comprehensive chronology that charts the involvement of the agency with those individuals within the timescales listed in the covering letter. Using the spreadsheet provided it should describe the events that occurred; intelligence and information known to the agency; the decisions reached; the services offered and provided to the victim, the perpetrator and their families; and any other action taken. Analysis of involvement The review should consider the events that occurred, the decisions made and the actions taken or not taken. Where judgements were made or actions taken that indicate that practice or management could be improved. The analysis should consider not only what happened but why. Each homicide may have specific issues that need to be explored and each review should consider carefully the individual case and how best to structure the review in light of the particular circumstances. The following are examples of the areas that will need to be considered:

4 This guidance should be read in conjunction with the Multi-agency Statutory Guidance for the Conduct of Domestic Homicide Reviews, Home Office (2016)

22

Were practitioners sensitive to the needs of the victim and the perpetrator, knowledgeable about potential indicators of domestic violence and abuse and aware of what to do if they had concerns about a victim or perpetrator? Was it reasonable to expect them, given their level of training and knowledge, to fulfil these expectations?

Did the agency have policies and procedures for Domestic Abuse, Stalking and Harassment (DASH) risk assessment and risk management for domestic violence and abuse victims or perpetrators and were those assessments correctly used in the case of this victim/perpetrator? Did the agency have policies and procedures in place for dealing with concerns about domestic violence and abuse? Were these assessment tools, procedures and policies professionally accepted as being effective? Was the victim subject to a MARAC or other multi-agency fora?

Did the agency comply with domestic violence and abuse protocols agreed with other agencies, including any information-sharing protocols?

What were the key points or opportunities for assessment and decision making in this case? Do assessments and decisions appear to have been reached in an informed and professional way?

Did actions or risk management plans fit with the assessment and decisions made? Were appropriate services offered or provided, or relevant enquiries made in the light of the assessments, given what was known or what should have been known at the time?

When, and in what way, were the victim’s wishes and feelings ascertained and considered? Is it reasonable to assume that the wishes of the victim should have been known? Was the victim informed of options/choices to make informed decisions? Were they signposted to other agencies?

Was anything known about the perpetrator? For example, were they being managed under MAPPA? Were there any injunctions or protection orders that were, or previously had been, in place?

Had the victim disclosed to any practitioners or professionals and, if so, was the response appropriate?

Was this information recorded and shared, where appropriate?

Were procedures sensitive to the ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious identity of the victim, the perpetrator and their families? Was consideration for vulnerability and disability necessary? Were any of the other protected characteristics relevant in this case?

Were senior managers or other agencies and professionals involved at the appropriate points?

Are there other questions that may be appropriate and could add to the content of the case? For example, was the domestic homicide the only one that had been committed in this area for a number of years?

Are there ways of working effectively that could be passed on to other organisations or individuals?

Are there lessons to be learned from this case relating to the way in which this agency works to safeguard victims and promote their welfare, or the way it

23

identifies, assesses and manages the risks posed by perpetrators? Where can practice be improved? Are there implications for ways of working, training, management and supervision, working in partnership with other agencies and resources?

Did any staff make use of available training?

Did any restructuring during the period under review likely to have had an impact on the quality of the service delivered?

How accessible were the services for the victim and perpetrator?

Effective Practice /Lessons Learnt This is the section that should identify any conclusions drawn from the analysis of agency involved. There may be good practice to highlight, as well as ways in which practice might be improved. Recommendations In most cases your IMR will identify areas where the agency’s practice can be improved upon. If this is the case, the report also needs to make recommendations as to how the agency can achieve these improvements. Each recommendation should have a clear intended outcome and a way of measuring that outcome. Single Agency Action Plan Please detail the recommendations in a single agency action plan. Where appropriate these will be drawn in to the overall multi-agency action plan for the review.

Recommendation/ Learning theme

Scope of recommendation

i.e. local or regional

Action to take

Lead Agency/ Partners

hip

Key milestones achieved in

enacting recommendation

Target Date Date of completion

and Outcome

24

DOC 4 FIRST LETTER TO FAMILY/FRIENDS CONFIDENTIAL Dear name to be inserted, I am writing to you as the Chair of an independent review regarding the homicide of your mother, father, sister, brother etc. I would like to take this opportunity firstly to express my condolences for your loss and how sorry I am to intrude at this difficult time. The independent review is called a Domestic Homicide Review and this is a legal requirement. The review has just commenced and may take around six months to be completed. I am writing to let you know what to expect. The review will examine what happened to your mother, father, sister, brother etc. and identify any lessons that need to be learned in order to prevent this tragedy being repeated. It will try to ensure that public bodies like health, police and other community based organisations understand what happened leading up to the death of your mother, father, sister, brother etc. and identify where responses to the situation could be improved. These reviews do not seek to lay blame but seek to improve responses to domestic violence in the future. The Home Office has a leaflet explaining more about Domestic Homicide Reviews, and I have enclosed a copy of this with this letter. We think friends, family members and other people who knew the victim and perpetrator are the best people to help us understand what happened. We would be grateful if you would consider meeting with us in the near future to share your understanding of what happened and why - this might include your thoughts, memories and point of view on any aspect of what happened. If you would prefer not to participate, that will be fine too. Please contact name to be inserted on number to be inserted if you feel able to be part of the review and/or if you have any questions regarding the review process. Yours sincerely, Chair of the Review Panel Enc. Home Office Leaflet for Family and Friends

25

DOC 5 SECOND LETTER TO FAMILY AND FRIENDS CONFIDENTIAL Dear , You will recall I wrote to you on date to be inserted as the Chair of an independent review regarding the homicide of your mother, father, sister, brother etc. The review panel are trying to ensure that the circumstances around the death of your mother, father, sister, brother etc. are understood as far as possible and that learning is used to prevent further deaths in the future. As yet we haven’t received a response to our initial letter to you and we understand that you may not wish to be involved in this review, but if you know of anyone else who would like to inform the review please do get in touch and let us know. The person to contact is name to be inserted on the number listed above. The review is now well underway and an anonymised review report will be published on a public website when complete. We will write to you again once the review has concluded to offer an opportunity to review the report prior to publication. Yours sincerely Chair of the Review Panel

26

DOC 6 LETTER TO PERPTETRATOR Dear , I am writing to you as the Chair of an independent review regarding the homicide of victim’s name, to ask if you are willing to participate in the review. The review is called a Domestic Homicide Review and it is a legal requirement. The review will examine what happened and identify any lessons that need to be learned by the agencies involved. These reviews do not seek to lay blame but to ensure that public bodies like health, police and other community based organisations understand what happened and identify where responses to the situation could be improved. The review report is being compiled by an independent author and if you are willing they would like to meet with you. If you would prefer not to participate, that will be fine too. Your Probation Officer has access to further information from the Home Office explaining about Domestic Homicide Reviews. Please let your Probation Officer know if you would like to be involved. Yours sincerely, Chair of the Review Panel

27

DOC 7 TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR REVIEW PANEL 1. Introduction This Domestic Homicide Review is commissioned by the insert name Partnership in response to the death(s) of [victim] on [Date]. This Domestic Homicide Review (DHR) was commissioned because it meets the definition detailed in paragraph 12 of the Multi-Agency Guidance for the Conduct of Domestic Homicide Reviews (Home Office 2016). The review will follow the Statutory Guidance for Domestic Homicide Reviews under the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. [Name of independent Chair and Job Title] has been appointed as Chair of the review panel at the Review Panel meeting held on [date]. 2. Purpose of the review The purpose of the review is to:

Establish the facts that led to the incident on [date] and whether there are any lessons to be learned from the case about the way in which local professionals and agencies worked together to safeguard the family

Identify what those lessons are, how they will be acted upon and what is expected to change as a result.

Apply these lessons to service responses including changes to policies and procedures as appropriate

Prevent domestic violence and abuse homicide and improve service responses for all domestic violence and abuse victims and their children through improved intra and inter-agency working

Domestic Homicide Reviews are not inquiries into how the victim died or who is culpable. That is a matter for coroners and criminal courts. 3. Scope of the review The review will:

Consider the period of [insert timescale] prior to the events, subject to any information emerging that prompts a review of any earlier incidents or events that are relevant.

Request Individual Management Reviews by each of the agencies defined in Section 9 of the Act, and invite responses from any other relevant agencies or individuals identified through the process of the review.

Seek the involvement of the family, employers, neighbours & friends to provide a robust analysis of the events.

Take account of the coroners’ inquest in terms of timing and contact with the family.

Produce a report which summarises the chronology of the events, including the actions of involved agencies, analysis and comments on the actions taken and makes any required recommendations regarding safeguarding of

28

families and children where domestic abuse is a feature.

Aim to produce the report by the end of [date] subject to any criminal proceedings, responding sensitively to the concerns of the family, particularly in relation to the inquest process, the individual management reviews being completed and the potential for identifying matters which may require further review.

To consider the impact of the victims and perpetrators immigration status on agency responses.

To discover if the perpetrator was subject to a Domestic Violence Protection Notice or Domestic Violence Protection Order

Were there any disclosure under ‘Right to know’ or ‘Right to ask’.

In addition the following areas will be addressed in the Individual Management Reviews and the Overview Report: [insert relevant issues for consideration specific to this case i.e.

Was the victim known to local domestic abuse services, was the incident a one off or where there any warning signs. Could more be done to raise awareness of services available to victims of domestic abuse.

Are family, friends, colleagues participating in the review, where they aware of any abuse that may have been taking place.

Were there any barriers experienced by the victim or family, friends and colleagues in reporting the abuse.

Was abuse present in any previous relationships, did this affect the victims decision on whether to access support.

Where there any opportunities for professionals to routinely enquire as to any domestic abuse experienced by the victim that were missed.

Are there any training or awareness raising requirements that are necessary to ensure a greater knowledge and understanding of the services available.

Give appropriate consideration to any equality and diversity issues that appear pertinent to the victim, perpetrator and dependent children.]

4. Family involvement The review will seek to involve the family of both the victim and the perpetrator in the review process, taking account of who the family wish to have involved as lead members and to identify other people they think relevant to the review process. We will seek to agree a communication strategy that keeps the families informed, if they so wish, throughout the process. We will be sensitive to their wishes, their need for support and any existing arrangements that are in place to do this. We will identify the timescale and process of the coroner’s inquest and ensure that the family are able to respond to this review and the inquest avoiding duplication of effort and without undue pressure.

29

5. Legal advice and costs Each statutory agency will be expected and reminded to inform their legal departments that the review is taking place. Each statutory agency may seek their own legal advice at their own discretion and cost. If an Independent Overview Author is required the costs of this will be met through (insert as appropriate). 6. Panel members, expert witnesses and advisors The following agencies and individuals are suggested to participate in the review panel: [insert as appropriate]. It is intended to consider consulting with the following agencies and individuals to provide a view of the findings and recommendations arising from the report: [insert as appropriate]. Other appropriate agencies and people may be identified through the course of the review. 7. Media and communication The management of all media and communication matters will be through a joint team drawn from the statutory partners involved. There will be no presumption to inform the public via the media that a review is being held in order to protect the family from any unwanted media attention. However, a reactive press statement regarding the review will be developed to respond to any enquiries to explain the basis for the review, why and who commissioned the review, the basic methodology and that the review is working closely with the family throughout the process. An executive summary of the review will be published on the CSP website, with an appropriate press statement available to respond to any enquiries. The recommendations of the review will be distributed through the CSP website and applied to any other learning opportunities with partner agencies involved with responding to domestic abuse.

30

DOC 8 JOB DESCRIPTION FOR OVERVIEW REPORT AUTHOR

Background This role arises from the statutory requirement to undertake Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHRs) when considered appropriate to do so. The Lead responsibility for this sits with the Chairs of the Community Safety Partnerships (CSP) in which area the murder occurs. What needs to be considered? In order to comply with Home Office Guidance it is likely that there will be a number of persons identified for this role. Individuals will be selected on a case by case basis to ensure compliance with guidance and also to meet the potential capacity needs at the time. The job description and key activities should be viewed as a general guide. It is essential that consideration is given to the circumstances of an individual DHR as this will need to be reflected in the commissioning process for the Overview Report Writer through the contract of employment. Key activities:

To actively participate in review panel meetings and provide expertise regarding

agency responsibilities and the content of IMRs

To establish a family liaison system and ensuring, if appropriate, their views are

reflected in the final report

To develop and deliver the overview report in line with Home Office Guidance

including a detailed combined chronology

To identify, advise and recommend to the review panel any areas for improved

service delivery

To develop an action plan based on the agreed recommendations

To provide regular updates to the Chair of the Review Panel ensuring the report

is produced within the agreed timescales, budget and quality

To be responsible for the proper use and safekeeping of data and record systems both manual and computerised as prescribed in data protection legislation

Accountability and Reporting Arrangements The Overview Author will report to the Chair of the Review Panel.

31

DOC 9 JOB DESCRIPTION FOR DOMESTIC HOMICIDE REVIEW CHAIR

Job description This role is responsible for ensuring the Domestic Homicide Review process and panel is carried out in a way that promotes learning and achieves the best outcome from the process. It arises from the statutory requirement to undertake Domestic Homicide Reviews as outlined in the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act (2004). The Chair of the Review Panel will be responsible for coordinating the review, setting meetings, keeping to timescales and ensuring the final overview report is of a satisfactory quality. The DHR Panel Chair should, where possible, be an experienced individual who is not directly associated with any of the agencies involved in the review. Specific skills/abilities:

Relevant knowledge of domestic violence issues including ‘honour’- based violence, research, guidance and legislation relating to adults and children, including the Equality Act 2010;

An understanding of the dynamics of domestic violence, including coercive control and the impact of gender and ethnicity on the experience of abuse and the help seeking process;

The completion of the E-Learning Training Package on Domestic Homicide Reviews, including the additional modules on chairing reviews and producing Overview Reports.

An understanding of the role, context and decision making processes of the main agencies likely to be involved in the review;

Managerial expertise;

Good investigative, interviewing and communication skills;

An understanding of the discipline regimes within participating agencies;

Analytical and report writing skills;

Specific activities the role is expected to deliver:

1. To chair the appointed DHR Panel.

2. To liaise closely with the Community Safety Partnership’s lead officer.

3. To draw up a terms of reference for each homicide to scope the review process in line with guidance and include the period of time to be considered in respect of the victim and perpetrator histories.

4. To ensure contact is made with the chair of any parallel review process (such as

a child or adult serious case review or mental health investigation) to consider

combining the reviews.

32

5. To liaise with the Coroner, Independent Police Complaints Commissioner, or

any other review process at an early stage to determine how the review should

take account of such proceedings.

6. To write to the senior manager in each of the participating agencies to

commission the individual management reviews (IMRs) which will form part of

the overview report.

7. To consider (based on the circumstances of the case) whether or not outside

“experts” should be consulted or invited to sit on the panel.

8. To be cognisant of any special equality and diversity issues that may need to be considered, and consideration of victim’s immigration status.

9. To organise a media or communication link for the process of the review, the

final publication is the responsibility of the community safety partnership.

10. To be cognisant of previous national and local reviews and any lessons learnt. Accountability and Reporting Arrangements The Chair of the Review panel will report to the Chair of the Community Safety Partnership.

33

DOC 10 FORMAT FOR OVERVIEW REPORT (To be anonymised for publication and dissemination) Title page of overview report

Name of the Community Safety Partnership

Victim’s pseudonym and month and year of death

Author’s name

Date the review report was completed List of contents page This report of a domestic homicide review examines agency responses and support given to (pseudonym used for victim’s name), a resident of (area name) prior to the point of (his/her) death on (date of death). In addition to agency involvement the review will also examine the past to identify any relevant background or trail of abuse before the homicide, whether support was accessed within the community and whether there were any barriers to accessing support. By taking a holistic approach the review seeks to identify appropriate solutions to make the future safer. Summarise the circumstances that led to a review being undertaken in this case. The review will consider agencies contact/involvement with (victim’s and perpetrator’s pseudonym) from (indicate date/s/period that the scope of the review will be examining and the reason this has been chosen). The key purpose for undertaking DHRs is to enable lessons to be learned from homicides where a person is killed as a result of domestic violence and abuse. In order for these lessons to be learned as widely and thoroughly as possible, professionals need to be able to understand fully what happened in each homicide, and most importantly, what needs to change in order to reduce the risk of such tragedies happening in the future. Timescales This review began on (date) and was concluded on (date). Reviews, including the overview report, should be completed, where possible, within six months of the commencement of the review. Explain any reasons for delay in completion (this should include any additional delays other than due to the criminal trial). Confidentiality The findings of each review are confidential. Information is available only to participating officers/professionals and their line managers. Include pseudonym/s agreed with the family and used in the report to protect the identity of the individual(s) involved. State the age of the victim and perpetrator at the time of the fatal incident, and their ethnicity. Terms of reference

34

Methodology Record details of the decision to undertake a DHR and who was involved in that decision. Describe the methodology used, what documents were used, whether interviews undertaken. Involvement of family, friends, work colleagues, neighbours and wider community Include when people were contacted and by whom; the nature of their involvement and whether they have been provided with the relevant Home Office DHR leaflet. Include whether:

The family had the help of a specialist and expert advocate

The terms of reference were shared with them to assist with the scope of the review

The family met the review panel

The family have been updated regularly

Reviewed the draft report in private with plenty of time to do so, and have the opportunity to comment and make amendments if required.

All those contributing were able to do so using the medium they prefer Contributors to the review List the agencies and other contributors to the review and the nature of their contribution i.e. IMR, report, or information. Confirm the independence of IMR authors and how they are independent. The review panel members List the names of DHR panel members, their role and job title and the agency they represent (Section 4 paragraph 29). Include number of times the Panel met, and confirm independence of Panel members. Author of the overview report Explain the independence of the chair (and author if separate roles) and give details of their career history and relevant experience (Section 4 paragraph 36). Confirm that the chair/author have had no connection with the Community Safety Partnership. If they have worked for any agency in the area previously state how long ago that employment ended. Parallel reviews State if an inquest or any other reviews or inquiries have been conducted and whether they have been used to inform this review. Equality and diversity Address the nine protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 if relevant to the review. Include examining barriers to accessing services in addition to wider consideration as to whether service delivery was impacted. Dissemination List of recipients who will receive copies of the review report.

35

Background information (the facts)

Where the victim lived and where the homicide took place. A synopsis of the homicide (what actually happened and how the victim was killed).

Details of the Post Mortem and inquest and/or Coroner’s inquiry if already held. State the cause of death.

Members of the family and the household. Who else lived at the address and, if children were living there, what their ages were at the time (to enhance anonymity, the children’s genders should not be given).

How long the victim had been living with the perpetrator(s). If a partner/ex-partner, how long they had been together as a couple.

Who has been charged with the homicide, the date and outcome of the trial, and sentence given.

If the review is being undertaken into a victim who took their own life (suicide) state on what basis this was considered to meet the criteria to undertake the review. Chronology Explain the background history of the victim and the perpetrator prior to the timescales under review stated in the terms of reference to give context to their story. Provide a combined narrative chronology charting relevant key events/contact/involvement with the victim, the perpetrator and their families by agencies, professionals and others who have contributed to the review process. Note the time and date of each occasion when the victim, perpetrator or child(ren) was seen and the views and wishes that were sought or expressed. (If the family structure is extensive or complex consider including an anonymised genogram at the start of the chronology) Overview An overview that summarises what information was known to the agencies and professionals involved about the victim, the perpetrator and their families. Any other relevant facts or information about the victim and perpetrator. Analysis This part of the overview should examine how and why events occurred, information that was shared, the decisions that were made, and the actions that were taken or not taken. It can consider whether different decisions or actions may have led to a different course of events. The analysis section should address the terms of reference and the key lines of enquiry within them. It is also where any examples of good practice should be highlighted. Conclusions Bring together an overview of main issues identified and conclusions drawn from them which will translate into the detailing of lessons learnt in the next section. Lessons to be learnt This part of the report should summarise what lessons are to be drawn from the case and how those lessons should be translated into recommendations for action. State

36

any early learning identified during the review process and whether this has already been acted upon. Recommendations Recommendations should include, but not be limited to, those made in individual management reports and can include recommendations of national impact made for national level bodies or organisations. Recommendations should be focused and specific, and capable of being implemented. Report into the death of (add victim‘s name/reference) Report produced by ….. Date ……

37

DOC 11 FORMAT FOR ACTION PLAN Recommendation Scope of

recommendation i.e. local or regional

Action to take Lead Agency Key milestones achieved in enacting

recommendation

Target Date Date of completion and

Outcome What is the over-arching recommendation?

Should this recommendation be enacted at a local or regional level? (N.B national learning will be identified by the Home Office Quality Assurance Panel, however the review panel can suggest recommendations for national level)

How exactly is the relevant agency going to make this recommendation happen? What actions need to occur?

Which agency is responsible for monitoring progress of the actions and ensuring enactment of the recommendation?

Have there been key steps that have allowed the recommendation to be enacted?

When should this recommendation be completed by?

When is the recommendation actually completed? What does outcome look like

38

DOC12 - DOMESTIC HOMICIDE REVIEW

Community Safety Partnership

Local DHR Reference

Police Force

Date first notified to Home Office

Name of Review Panel Chair

Name of Report Author

Date report completed

Date submitted to Home Office

(Please include information for all victims) Victim

Gender

Age at time of incident

Relationship to perpetrator

Ethnicity5

Nationality

Religion

Sexual Orientation

Disability

Perpetrator

Gender

Age at time of incident

Relationship to victim

Ethnicity1

Nationality

Religion

Sexual Orientation

Disability

Details of verdict

General

Date of homicide

Place of murder

Method of killing

Number of Children in Household

5 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/ethnicity/articles/2011censusanalys

isethnicityandreligionofthenonukbornpopulationinenglandandwales/2015-06-18

39

DOC 13 FORMAT FOR PUBLICATION BRIEFING

Publication Briefing for Key Partners

CONTENTS

1. Pre-publication timetable and actions

2. Media Protocol

3. Key messages

4. Draft press release

5. Follow up media

6. Key contacts

7. Useful documents

40

1. PRE-PUBLICATION TIMETABLE AND ACTIONS

Action Status Who

Planning meetings

Family Liaison

Partner briefings

Individual Briefings

Pre- Publication

24 hours prior to publication

Publication

Pages live on CSP website

Press release

Follow up interviews

41

2. MEDIA PROTOCOL

The Media and Corporate Communications Team at INSERT will send the initial press release to media contacts.

Any media enquiries following the initial press release will be dealt with by the communications lead within the relevant authority.

Any information relating to the DHR is restricted until the date of publication –INSERT DATE.

An embargoed copy of the press release will be sent by the Media and Corporate Communications Team at INSERT to interested parties 24 hours prior to publication.

The report will only be attached to the INSERT Community Safety web pages at INSERT. Other websites will reference INSERT when referring to the reports.

The review has been suitably anonymised to protect those concerned and media contact should be made which would compromise this.

Responses should be based on the key messages and the prepared responses by communication and partnership officers.

Those involved in this process including spokespeople should adhere to and abide by their own organisation/partnership communication protocols when dealing with the media.

All involved should be aware of the legal framework surrounding the publication of this review. The single point of contact for legal advice will be the Legal and Democratic Services at INSERT.

42

3. POSSIBLE KEY MESSAGES

The aim of domestic homicide reviews

Stress the independence of the review

Reassure this is a tragic case which is exceptionally rare

Emphasise the report concludes it was impossible to predict (if relevant)

Reiterate our commitment to tackling domestic violence

The report highlights many areas of good practice but there are also recommendations to improve the response to similar situations in the future

This review will help improve agency knowledge of and response to INSERT

Stress the key areas of actions since the death

How to report if the reader or someone they know is experiencing domestic violence

4. DRAFT PRESS RELEASE 5. FOLLOW-UP MEDIA Any responses from the media to the initial press release will be dealt with by the appropriate communications lead. Key spokespeople have been identified who have a detailed knowledge of the review process, the recommendations and the agency response. List spokespeople and areas of responsibility regarding press Spokespeople will be given support from their relevant communications officer if there is follow up from the media. The press release has been drafted to minimise the need for follow up enquiries. Communication Officers will ask the media to stipulate the questions they would be seeking responses to enable officers to work with the spokesperson to agree a suitable response.

43

20.3 KEY CONTACTS

Lead Partnership Officers Dorset Safeguarding Adults Board (DSAB) and/or Bournemouth and Poole Safeguarding Adult Board (BPSAB) Dorset Safeguarding Children’s Board (DSCB) and/or Bournemouth and Poole Safeguarding Children Board Community Safety Partnership (CSP)

Lead Communications Officers Media and Corporate Communications, Dorset Police

Responsible for

Communications Team, Dorset County Council (DCC)

Responsible for

Communications Team, Dorset Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG)

Responsible for Legal Advice Principal Solicitor, Legal and Democratic Services, Dorset County Council

Single initial point of contact for legal advice