A quick thinking probationary police officer used his bodycam to record the testimony of a fatally injured woman, which was then crucial in the prosecution of her husband, a domestic homicide review has highlighted.
The police officer received permission from a doctor to record the dying words of the woman, who was attacked by her husband in front of their children.
Two domestic homicide reviews were published on Thursday, the murder of ‘Ruth’ by her husband and ‘Pamela’ by a partner. Following legislation, most, if not all, domestic homicides carried out after 2021 will be reviewed for lessons to be learned and recommendations made.
In both cases, there was no previous history of domestic abuse, though ‘Pamela’, a recent mother, was being seen by agencies for mental health issues.
Pamela’s partner was seen as “protective” of her by social care workers but the review found a lack of “professional curiosity” as no assessment was carried out of him or on the couple’s relationship, the review’s author, Jan Melia, of the domestic review panel, wrote.
Ms Melia also highlighted how Covid-19 hampered efforts to build a greater rapport with the victim that might have led to her opening up more about the relationship.
Her partner died in prison shortly after the murder and before the case came to trial.
The review of Ruth detailed how she had been married for many years and there were no reports to agencies of domestic violence or abuse, or to any friend or family member.
However, her husband, currently serving a substantial prison sentence for murder, has a long history of mental health issues and had received in-patient, outpatient treatment and other services. She was effectively a carer for him.
“Less than six months before her death, Ruth approached a solicitor seeking advice on separating from her husband,” the review by Anne Marks stated.
Over the following months, knowing that Ruth wanted a separation, her husband ignored solicitors’ letters, refused to attend counselling services, attempted to isolate Ruth from her children and began limiting Ruth’s access to finances.
“Ruth’s husband became increasingly controlling and, when this did not work, he murdered her.”
The review recommended a media campaign to highlight the “leaving, or attempting to leave, a relationship is one of the most dangerous times for a victim, one that can end in murder”.
But the review also commended the “quick-thinking action of the doctor and the police officer” to make the decision to record Ruth’s testimony on bodycam.
“Capturing Ruth’s account was of huge significance in terms of the future prosecution of this case,” said Ms Marks, noting the police was still in his probationary period.
Pamela was engaged with a range of services within her local trust area and was being supported by mental health services at the time of her death.
She did not report domestic abuse or any other issues around the relationship with her partner, named John in the report. However, there was a lack of trust and rapport between the victim and trust staff, which was compounded by Covid-19 restrictions.
There was no evidence John was included in any risk assessments and he was presented as capable and recognised as protective by services, Ms Melia wrote.
The lack of a broader assessment of a person’s circumstances, including their relationships, partner and home life was a “missed opportunity”.
The report concluded: “Pamela’s death was not predictable. Services were not aware of any issues in the relationship between Pamela and John...there were missed opportunities to speak with both Pamela and John together or separately.
“Services lacked professional curiosity regarding their relationship.”
Victims’ commissioner designate Geraldine Hanna said a “laser like focus” is needed from all the relevant agencies “to implement the recommendations from these reviews”.
““This should be the priority for those agencies and they should be held accountable for achieving that,” Ms Hanna said.
“Tackling the scourge of domestic abuse is not something that sits under the purview of one government department or one organisation; this is something that requires a truly cross-cutting approach and input from all of our public bodies.”
