Thousands of domestic violence victims could be at risk as police oblivious of court orders against attackers

Exclusive: Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner​ says: 'I cannot imagine the trauma of having to physically carry around a piece of paper to prove you have a non-molestation order. Every time they put it in their handbag or pin it to their fridge, they are reminded they are a victim'

Research by government consultants found that the absence of a comprehensive database meant police were often in the dark about vulnerable women in their area (Shutterstock)

Tens of thousands of domestic violence victims could be at risk of abuse because police are unaware of court orders against their attackers, The Independent can reveal.

The orders – often restricting where abusers can go or who they can approach – are made on paper rather than a database, and keeping the record is the responsibility of the victim.

But experts warn that because these civil court papers must be taken to a police station to be registered with a force, vulnerable women may be intimidated out of making authorities aware – or even have their order ripped up by an abusive partner.

And even when the details are logged, they are not shared with other forces, meaning that women who have moved – something common among abuse victims – would not be flagged as vulnerable in their new area.

Research by government consultants found that the absence of a comprehensive database meant police were often in the dark about vulnerable women in their area. This means preventative work cannot be carried out and officers would not be aware of repeat offenders.

Katy Bourne, the Sussex police and crime commissioner, said: “If an officer turns up in a domestic situation, the officer can only lawfully intervene if they know there is an order. If they know the victim is vulnerable, they can act much more swiftly.

“You would assume as a victim the police would know about your order but, because it is issued in the civil court, it is not automatically shared with the police. Even if you do share the order with local police, it is not passed digitally to the police national database.

“I can speak from personal experience as a stalking victim. I cannot imagine the trauma of having to physically carry around a piece of paper to prove you have a non-molestation order.

“Every time they put it in their handbag or pin it to their fridge, they are reminded they are a victim, and of the trauma they had to go through. The onus on the victim to relive the trauma every time they see that paper is fundamentally unacceptable.”

Many victims take action against abusers through the civil court system rather than the criminal system because it is a less stressful, protracted and upsetting, according to the research. The non-molestation orders, which can last a lifetime, prevent a partner or ex from using or threatening violence against a victim or their child. More than 25,000 orders were made last year, and 6,699 in the first three months of this year.

The report, by Crest Advisory and CGI, which created the police database, said: “Not only is the lack of a digital record frustrating for victims, it potentially puts them at unnecessary risk of harm.

“In most cases, a local police force will have no knowledge of the NMOs that have been issued across their police force area.”

Katie Ghose, of Women’s Aid, said: “Non-molestation orders must protect survivors and ensure that perpetrators are held to account for breaching protection orders. Yet it is clear the police are not always aware of non-molestation orders granted in their area or effectively enforcing them, which puts the burden on the survivor to keep herself safe.”

Nick Dale, of CGI, which conducted the report, said: “We believe that better use of technology would help to bridge some of the disconnects between agency systems, which would, in turn, enable the police to better protect domestic abuse sufferers. By digitising and making available nationally the thousands of civil orders given every year, for example, not only would the burden of proof be removed from victims but police officers would be far better equipped to respond quickly and appropriately to potentially dangerous situations.”

Though lawyers representing victims, court bailiffs or the victims themselves are obliged to tell police when an order has been granted, researchers still found huge gaps in forces’ records.

One domestic violence victim that researchers spoke to said she was forced to show her order to an officer who then had to take it to a station, eventually saying: “One force had it on their system, but the other didn’t.”

Deputy Chief Constable Louisa Rolfe, of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, said: “It is the job of the police to protect victims of domestic abuse and secure justice for them. The CGI/Crest Advisory report identifies a number of options to better protect victims, but the implications for victims, policing and other agencies are not yet assessed or understood.

“While I agree that we must do more to share information in order to better protect victims, I am concerned that a national register of all restrictive orders will require substantial investment and may lead to unreasonable expectations of policing to enforce matters well beyond our remit of safety and justice.”

She said some forces use a phone app from the National Centre for Domestic Violence which gives officers access to a database of non-molestation orders. However, the app only holds a fraction of the records – and figures show last year officers across the country used the app to download just 2,000 orders. The Ministry of Justice declined to comment.

Suzanne Jacob, of Safe Lives, said: “Technology is moving on fast but key agencies in the UK are not keeping up. We can order specialist dog food from the other side of the world in three clicks, but we can’t rely on systems used by absolutely crucial agencies to safeguard us from harm. That’s completely unacceptable. To change this antiquated approach requires real leadership and investment – patchy improvements are not enough and will not keep people safe.”