It is well-known that in the UK on average two women a week are killed by a partner or ex-partner. These deaths appear almost normalised. Whilst terrorist deaths make the headlines and teenage stabbings provoke national hand-wringing, women’s deaths at the hands of male partners are more likely to attract a one-minute slot on the local news.
Whilst Theresa May was Home Secretary in 2010 the Government launched a national Call to End Violence Against Women and Girls, and domestic abuse ostensibly became a high political priority. Yet the Centre for Women’s Justice hears repeatedly from frontline women’s services how chronic under-resourcing and lack of training for police officers mean poor police responses for the women they support. Under austerity many specialist domestic abuse police units have been disbanded, or are so small that most survivors have no dealings with them.
Susan Nicholson was murdered by Robert Trigg in April 2011. Trigg claimed that he must have accidentally smothered her in his sleep as they lay on the sofa. Sussex Police initially considered the death non-suspicious. Five years previously the same approach was taken by the same police force following the death of another girlfriend of Trigg, Caroline Devlin. It was only after years of campaigning by Susan’s family that the criminal investigation was re-opened, and in 2017 Trigg was finally convicted of Susan’s murder and Caroline’s manslaughter. Police had held records of seven reports by four other girlfriends of Trigg since 2003, including numerous assaults, threats to kill, threatening calls and smashing a window. In the years after Susan’s death Trigg committed further offences against other women.
The police had been to Susan’s flat six times following reports of violence in the weeks before her death.
The police had been to Susan’s flat six times following reports of violence in the weeks before her death. Approximately three months before Susan’s death a neighbour called the police reporting lots of shouting and screaming from the flat over the last two hours. Police who attended did not note information about Trigg’s history of violence towards previous partners. In the month before her death police again attended the address after a neighbour reported to the police that Trigg had punched Susan in the face. Susan’s denials were taken at face value and an officer again noted that there was no history of violence. Two days later a neighbour reported an argument that had gone on for the good part of the day. Officers found Susan with two black eyes, a swollen nose and mouth, bruising to her chest and a cut to her arm. Trigg was given a caution but the incident was not linked to the earlier two call-outs. Susan’s risk was graded as medium, which should have required a referral to the specialist unit. However the case was then downgraded to standard risk, without any reason given, so a referral did not take place.
You would expect a police service to want to examine in detail what may have gone wrong when a woman who repeatedly came to police attention suffering violence goes on to be murdered. You would also expect a Coroner, whose role includes making findings to prevent future deaths, to want to examine whether police failings have contributed to such a murder. Yet Susan’s family are having to go to the High Court in a bid to force the Coroner to hold an inquest to examine whether there were police failings. And Sussex Police are resisting their application in court and seeking thousands of pounds of legal costs from the family, who do not have legal aid.
The Coroner has decided that there should not be a full inquest because there are no police failings which breach the duty to protect Susan under the Human Rights Act. In doing so she has put the cart before the horse because there clearly are potentially serious failings and the very purpose of an inquest is to investigate whether the duty under the Human Rights Act has been breached. The family are asking the High Court to apply this obvious logic. A judge has granted permission to bring a judicial review, which will now go to a full hearing.
The Nicholson family’s legal challenge reflects the double standards around domestic abuse. Seen as a politically uncontroversial issue, after all everyone is against domestic abuse, when it comes to taking action on the ground the story is quite different. State bodies are reluctant to commit resources to grapple with the realities women face. HM Inspectorate of Constabulary noted in its 2014 report into policing of domestic abuse that “domestic abuse is a priority on paper, but in the majority of forces, not in practice……stated intent is not translating into operational reality in most forces”. Its 2019 update report shows that whilst there has been some improvement, this remains limited. The police should be putting their energies into improving protection for vulnerable women. They can and must learn from women’s deaths, rather than ploughing money into preventing an official inquiry into officers’ actions.
To support the Nicholson family’s legal challenge visit their crowdfunding page.
The family are represented by solicitors Alice Hardy and Fiona Bowen at Hodge Jones & Allen, who are members of the Centre for Women’s Justice Legal Reference Panel.
Written by Nogah Ofer, a solicitor at Centre for Women’s Justice.