PPDVPDomestic Violence Case File

Attrition Study

A summary analysis for five PICP member countries

Dr Michael Roguski and Natalie Gregory

Research aimsThe current case file attrition study: provided a demographic profile of victims and perpetrators /

suspects and their relationships to one another identified domestic violence cases characteristics (for

example whether a weapon was involved and where the incident occurred)

gathered information surrounding the particulars of the police investigation of domestic violence cases;

identified why and cases were withdrawn and by whom; and identified domestic violence attrition rates cases across three

different stages of inquiry (Police, Prosecution and Court) provided an opportunity to map the case file process in each

nation

Quantitative Methodology Data was collected from 2012 domestic violence case files in the

Cook Islands, Kiribati, Samoa, Tonga and Vanuatu A coding framework and data collection form was informed by the

rape attrition research conducted by Lovett and Kelly (2009) and Lievore (2004)

Forty-eight open and closed-ended questions that addressed the following areas:– victim characteristics– suspect / offender characteristics– relationship between the victim and suspect / offender– case characteristics– police investigation and charges– court proceedings– case summary and outcome

Sample

The sample across the five nations:– Cook Islands, n=55– Kiribati, n=100– Samoa, n=31– Tonga, n=55– Vanuatu, n=23

Due to the organisation of the filing systems, the random selection of 100 files was not possible in four of the nations

Victim characteristics Gender was a significant risk factor to experiencing DV Females were overwhelmingly the victims in all nations

(ranging from 82% in Cook Islands to 95% in Tonga) The median age range of victims ranged between 27

years in Tonga and 37 years in Kiribati Unemployment high amongst victims from 20%

unemployed in the Cook Islands to 81% in Kiribati Majority of victims married in Kiribati, Tonga, Samoa

and Vanuatu, with exception of Cook Islands where majority in de facto relationship

Perpetrator / suspect characteristics

Perpetrator / suspects predominantly male (ranging from 80% in Samoa to 93% in Kiribati

The median age of perpetrator / suspects ranged from 28 years in Kiribati and 35 years in the Cook Islands

Majority of perpetrators married in Kiribati, Samoa, Tonga and Vanuatu, in Cook Islands most in de facto relationship

Prior offencesPrior offence Cook Islands Kiribati Samoa Tonga Vanuatu

None 35% 2% 86% 47% 28%

Prior DV 5% 0% 3% 42% 4%

Prior sexual 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Prior violent 0% 3% 6% 0% 0%

Prior other 2% 9% 6% 0% 0%

Prior unknown

11% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Unknown 47% 86% 0% 11% 68%

Relationship between victim and perpetrator / suspect

Type Cook Islands Kiribati Samoa Tonga Vanuatu

Current partner

76% 45% 40% 84% 56%

Former partner

4% 2% 0% 0% 0%

Family member

16% 53% 62% 18% 44%

Other 6% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Notes: 1. Some percentages have been rounded and may not equal 100%.2. In Samoa and Vanuatu one case included multiple offenders, hence the

total number of perpetrators / suspects exceeds the total number of cases.

Offence characteristics

Alcohol use by perpetrators at the time of the offence prevalent (ranging from 20% in Samoa to 84% in Kiribati)

Alcohol use by victims largely uncommon, with the exception of the Cook islands in which 38% of victims used alcohol at the time of the offence

Predominantly one victim and one perpetrator Weapon use not common, with the exception of Vanuatu

in which 39% of incidents involved a weapon Majority of incidents occurred in victim’s home (ranging

from 74% of cases in Vanuatu to 95% of cases in Tonga)

Offence characteristics (continued)

Offence included

Cook Islands Kiribati Samoa Tonga Vanuatu

Physical assault

66% 37% 68% 98% 83%

Sexual assault

0% 0% 0% 2% 30%

Victim injury 44% 28% 58% 87% 70%

Time taken to report offenceTimeframe Cook Islands Kiribati Samoa Tonga Vanuatu

At the time of offence

80% 69% 26% 7% 17%

Within 3 hours

13% 5% 29% 53% 22%

3 – 24 hours 6% 22% 19% 22% 22%

2 – 7 days 2% 1% 13% 11% 17%

8 days plus 0% 0% 3% 7% 22%

Unknown 0% 3% 10% 0% 0%

Note: Some percentages have been rounded and may not equal 100%.

Police investigation and prosecution processes

Investigation included: Cook Islands

Kiribati Samoa Tonga Vanuatu

Victim/s interviewed 89% 95% 100% 100% 96%

Suspect/s interviewed 85% 92% 97% 91% 70%

Witness/es interviewed 44% 56% 74% 13% 87%

Forensic scene examination

9% 0% 0% 0% 13%

Suspect arrested 51% 60% 94% 95% 35%

Charges laid 51% 73% 100% 93% 35%

Referred for Prosecution 51% 49% 100% 89% 35%

The collection of other pieces of evidence, such as medical reports, victim impact reports, evidentiary exhibits and previous conviction information not common across all nations

Why charges were not laid and cases were not referred for trial

Across nations reasons varied, however reasons included:– victim withdrawal of complaint– insufficient evidence– inability to locate either suspect and / or victim– case reaching statute of limitation – alternative action (peace settlement, counselling,

traditional reconciliation)– victim not cooperating with investigation– unknown reason

Charges faced in Court

Most common charges (please note that a number of cases involved multiple charges):- Cook Islands: assault on a female (n=27, 96%)- Kiribati: common nuisance (n=42, 86%) and

common assault (n=12, 25%)- Samoa: common assault (n=17, 55%) and insulting

words (n=9, 29%)- Tonga: common assault (n=46, 94%)- Vanuatu: domestic violence (n=4, 50%) and

intentional assault (n=4, 50%)

Court outcome

Outcome Cook Islands Kiribati Samoa Tonga Vanuatu

Withdrawn 4% 22% 45% 8% 0%

Acquitted / not guilty

0% 2%0%

0%0%

Found guilty 4% 0% 3% 0% 13%

Pleaded guilty

75% 27%45%

84%50%

Dismissed 7% 10% 7% 6% 25%

Unknown 11% 39% 0% 2% 13%

Punishment – Cook IslandsPunishment n= %

Discharged 11 50%

Counselling / workshop 5 23%

Compensation 3 13%

Fine 9 41%

Alcohol ban 4 18%

Community service 9 41%

Probation 7 32%

Custodial sentence 0 0%

Unknown 1 5%

Notes: 1. Some percentages have been rounded and may not equal 100%.2. As multiple charges and punishments were possible percentages will exceed 100%.

Punishment– KiribatiPunishment n= %

Alcohol ban 1 8%

Bound to keep the peace 4 31%

Community service 2 15%

Custodial sentence 1 8%

Fine 9 69%

Suspended sentence 4 31%

Notes: 1. Some percentages have been rounded and may not equal 100%.2. As multiple charges and punishments were possible percentages will exceed 100%.

Punishment– SamoaPunishment n= %

Come up again for sentencing 2 13%

Community service 2 13%

Custodial sentence 1 7%

Discharged (with conviction) 2 13%

Fine 9 60%

Probation 1 7%

Suspended sentence 6 40%

Notes: 1. Some percentages have been rounded and may not equal 100%.2. As multiple charges and punishments were possible percentages will exceed 100%.

Punishment– TongaPunishment n= %

Counselling 4 10%

Custodial sentence 5 12%

Discharged 3 7%

Fine 14 34%

Probation 7 17%

Suspended sentence 9 22%

Victim compensation 3 7%

Unknown 1 2%

Notes: 1. Some percentages have been rounded and may not equal 100%.2. As multiple charges and punishments were possible percentages will exceed 100%.

Punishment – VanuatuPunishment n= %

Custodial sentence 2 40%

Fine 3 60%

Outcome of DV incidents reported to police across five nations (%)

Outcome Cook Islands

Kiribati Samoa Tonga Vanuatu

Protection order 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Charges pressed and proceeded to court 49% 37% 100% 89% 35%

Referred to Women’s Centre / Counselling 24% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Other 20% 38% 0% 9% 65%

Unknown 7% 25% 0% 2% 0%

Proportion of DV cases withdrawn across five nations (%)

Cook Islands Kiribati Samoa Tonga Vanuatu0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

46%54%

48%

26%

78%

46%

15%

52%

71%

22%

9%

31%

0%4%

0%

Case withdrawn Case convicted Unknown

Country

Percentage

Point of attrition and who withdrew the case across five nations (%)

Variable Cook Islands Kiribati Samoa Tonga Vanuatu

When was the case withdrawn?

Dropped before case filed with Court 84% 67% 0% 36% 83%

Discontinued after filed with court 12% 33% 100% 57% 17%

Unknown 4% 0% 0% 7% 0%

Who withdrew the case?

Victim 16% 65% 93% 64% 56%

Police 64% 4% 0% 14% 28%

Prosecutor 16% 26% 0% 0% 11%

Judge / Magistrate 0% 6% 7% 21% 0%

Other judicial officer 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Unknown 4% 0% 0% 0% 6%

Individual responsible for the case withdrawal across five nations

Victim Police Prosecutor Judge Other judicial officer Unknown0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

16%

64%

16%

0% 0%

4%

65%

4%

26%

6%

0% 0%

93%

0% 0%

7%

0% 0%

64%

14%

0% 0%

21%

0%

56%

28%

11%

0% 0%

6%

Cook Islands Kiribati Samoa Tonga Vanuatu

Individual

Percentage

Case file management process Encountered many difficulties locating DV files from

2012 in each nation Each nation has processes in place, but generally

not followed and there are weaknesses at every point of each process

Issues with file management historical Barriers faced by each nation included:

– Lack of resources– No purpose-built secure facilities to store files

Need for professional file management expert in each nation

General observations The following observations are similar across the five nations:

– the infrequent inclusion of the file copy of the Domestic Violence Report form which is used with CMIS data entry

– the brevity of the formal statements taken by police– a lack of forensic evidence included in case files, photographs of

injuries and the scene and sketches of the scene (it should be noted that Kiribati do not have any forensic equipment or cameras available)

– the numerous gaps in the completion of information or information missing from files

With specific reference to Vanuatu, the length of time that victims’ have to wait from the time of reporting to police action, or eventual withdrawal by victim, was lengthy. In some cases, victims withdrew their complaints more than a year after reporting with no action

Recommendations

1. The five Pacific Police forces develop a clear understanding of, and adherence to, case file management best practice

2. Further training and supervisory programmes to ensure that best practice is consistently followed when investigating domestic violence cases

3. Formalise and implement case withdrawal protocols4. The implementation of a system in which all domestic

violence cases are returned to the Domestic Violence Team / Unit for completion and entry into CMIS / other databases

5. The development of guidelines to support complainant withdrawal petitions at court

Knowledge, Attitude and Practice Baseline Data: Summary

PresentationPrepared for the Cook Islands Police, Kiribati Police,

The Taupulenga, Niue Police, Tuvalu Police and Vanuatu Police

RecommendationsIssue Recommendations Common to the Majority of Nations

Insufficient capability amongst investigating officers

Training and mentorship on:• taking a statement;• gathering evidence;• preparing files for prosecutions that meet professional standards;• ensuring a senior officer reviews case files before they are

submitted to Prosecutions;• guidelines for the time it takes for a case to get to court; and,• file management. Ensure officers receive appropriate supervision.

Weaknesses with police prosecution (excluding Samoa)

Prosecution staff receive training in Court procedures and conduct.Implement clear reporting lines between Prosecutions and investigating officers to ensure any identified file weaknesses are addressed in a timely and efficient manner.Police prosecutors are trained on required timeframes. Ensure sufficient supervisory practices are implemented to ensure these protocols are followed.

Human rights and ethics

Provide training on key UN conventions and link these to police practice. Training should address the role of the police in regards to abuse of discretionary power, professionalism and community engagement.

Recommendations (cont.)Issue Recommendations Common to the Majority of Nations

Community Policing

Provide in-depth training on community policing awareness for all police and those in a supervisory capacity, so that police and supervisors possess a shared understanding of community policing.

Insufficient resourcing impacting on investigations and evidence gathering

Review existing resourcing and the associated impact on investigations and prosecutions. If required, 3P will assist the Police to develop a funding or amelioration strategy.

Case monitoring Establish protocols and supervisory practices surrounding the time required before a case progresses to prosecutions and to Court.Implement a system to monitor cases to ensure that incidents are dealt with by the police and the Court in a timely manner.

Attrition of Prosecutions officers

Establish staff rotation policies and ensure practices are reviewed to minimise / restrict attrition.Review police prosecution recruitment / placement policies and practices to ensure that police prosecutions is treated as valid career path within the police.

PPDVP and these Results

• Auckland workshop 8 – 10 March• Common factors identified

– File Processes agreed, but not followed– Investigation skills not applied– Lack of supervision & file management– Data entry systems (CMIS and others)– Functionality of Police Filing systems

• Individual country approach• PPDVP standards reinforced• Key focus out to mid 2016• Further analysis of 2014 files in late 2015