Consultation outcome

Domestic homicide review legislation consultation: government response

Updated 5 March 2024

February 2024

Introduction

This is the government’s response to the domestic homicide review (DHR) legislation consultation, which launched on 16 July 2023 and ran for 8 weeks, concluding on 11 August. The consultation was open to the public and invited feedback from a range of stakeholders, including violence against women and girls organisations, professional bodies, services and agencies, and individuals bereaved by domestic homicide or by suicide linked to domestic abuse.

This document provides an overview of the consultation and the responses received, summarising the key themes that arose from consultation responses and highlighting the specific outcomes of the consultation.

We are grateful to everyone who took the time to respond to this consultation, particularly those who have been personally affected by fatal domestic abuse.

If you wish to provide any comments regarding this response document, the public consultation or the legislative amendments, please contact the Home Office at the following address:

Domestic Homicide Review Team
Interpersonal Abuse Unit
5th floor, Fry Building
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF

Email: DHRReform@homeoffice.gov.uk

Alternative format versions of this publication can be requested from DHRReform@homeoffice.gov.uk

Complaints or comments

If you have any complaints or comments about the consultation process you should contact the Home Office at the above address.

Background

Domestic abuse is the most common form of violence against women and girls and in some cases, it can be fatal. The government is committed to ensuring it is doing everything it can to better understand and prevent fatal domestic abuse.

DHRs are legislated for via the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. They are multi-agency reviews which seek to identify and implement lessons learnt from a fatality where:

‘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’.

All domestic homicides and suicides that meet the criteria set out in Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 and the statutory guidance should be considered for a DHR. DHRs should be commissioned by the local Community Safety Partnership as they focus on recommendations for local agencies, however they can also include national recommendations to improve victim safeguarding to prevent further tragedies.

Misalignment between domestic homicide reviews and the Domestic Abuse Act 2021

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 introduced a statutory definition of domestic abuse that incorporates a range of abuses beyond ‘violence, abuse and neglect’ to include controlling or coercive behaviour, emotional abuse and economic abuse. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 also provides a clearer definition of which relationships domestic abuse can occur within, specifying that abusive behaviour between individuals who are ‘personally connected’ via intimate or family relationships ^{[footnote 1]} can be classed as domestic abuse. Under existing legislation, DHRs do not align with the definition of domestic abuse provided by the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. DHRs can currently be commissioned when a domestic homicide occurs in instances where individuals are cohabiting but not personally connected, which does not add to our understanding of domestic abuse. 

The term ‘homicide’ 

At present, DHRs can be commissioned where a death is linked to domestic abuse, either as a result of homicide, a victim taking their own life or in circumstances that are unexplained but give rise to concern. The 2016 multi-agency statutory guidance for the conduct of domestic homicide reviews clarified that DHRs could be conducted for domestic abuse-related suicides in recognition of the number of victims who die by suicide as a result of domestic abuse, and the need to better understand and prevent these deaths. As the nature of deaths which fall within the scope of a DHR are not exclusively homicides, the term ‘homicide’ in a DHR can be confusing and problematic for families after their loved one has died by suicide linked to domestic abuse. The term ‘homicide’ is also not applicable when conducting a review into deaths ruled as ‘unexplained’ or ‘unexpected’ by a Coroner.

To address these shortcomings in existing DHR legislation, the government held a public consultation inviting views on amending the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 to: 

• ensure a DHR is commissioned when the death has, or appears to have, resulted from domestic abuse as defined by the Domestic Abuse Act 2021
• amend the term ‘homicide’ in DHRs to reflect the range of the deaths which fall within the scope of a review

Summary of responses

Executive summary

The consultation responses supported amending the circumstances in which a DHR is conducted in the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 from ‘violence, abuse and neglect’ to the definition of domestic abuse in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. The statutory definition recognises controlling or coercive behaviour, emotional abuse and economic abuse as domestic abuse (in addition to other abusive behaviours) and specifies the relational context in which domestic abuse can occur as between individuals who are ‘personally connected’ via intimate or family relationships ^{[footnote 2]}, rather than individuals solely cohabiting. Explicitly including this definition in DHR legislation would ensure that DHRs focus on deaths linked to domestic abuse and thus better contribute to our understanding of domestic abuse and capture learnings to prevent fatal domestic abuse.

The consultation proposed renaming DHRs, and of the suggestions proposed by respondents, ‘domestic abuse related death reviews’ (or similar wording to convey this point) was the most common name put forward. This name will ensure that all fatalities linked to domestic abuse are treated as seriously as a domestic homicide, and the reviews are reflective of the circumstances of deaths which fall within scope of a review.

Consultation overview 

The DHR legislation set out in the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 is relevant to organisations and agencies working with victims of domestic abuse, family members and friends bereaved by fatal domestic abuse and perpetrators of domestic abuse. Some of these organisations may also have statutory duties to safeguard victims of domestic abuse. 

The Home Office sought to engage with the following groups through the consultation: 

• law enforcement agencies (police / policing bodies, Crown Prosecution Service)
• healthcare organisations
• local authorities
• educational institutions / student bodies
• violence against women and girls organisations
• specialist ‘by and for’ services
• domestic homicide / suicide-linked-to-domestic abuse organisations
• family members or friends bereaved by a domestic homicide
• family members or friends bereaved by a domestic abuse related death (not a homicide)

As the consultation was also publicly available, members of the general public who held a particular interest in the subject matter were also able to respond.  

The public consultation received responses from a variety of organisations and individuals, via an online survey, email submissions and via post.  Some questions were mandatory for the overall survey response to be included in the analysis. For the purposes of analysis, the mandatory questions were, Q1 (Are you responding as an individual or on behalf of an organisation?), Q4 (Are you in favour of updating DHR legislation so that a DHR is considered for all deaths that have or appear to have been the result of domestic abuse, as domestic abuse is defined in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021?) and Q5 (Are you in favour of renaming ‘domestic homicide reviews’?). 

In total there were 331 complete responses. The majority of responses were from or on behalf of organisations (222; 67%), with the remainder from individuals (109; 33%).

Of those responding as or on behalf of an organisation, the majority of organisations were Local Authorities (26%), with the second largest category being healthcare organisations (21%).

Table 1: Organisations represented in the consultation

Organisations represented in the consultation	Response percent (of non-blank responses)	Response total
Local authority	26%	56
Healthcare organisation	21%	46
Violence against women and girls charity / service provider	18%	40
Community safety partnership	14%	30
Law enforcement agency (police, policing body, Crown Prosecution Service)	7%	16
Domestic abuse organisation / partnership	4%	8
Other	4%	8
Office of a police and crime commissioner	3%	6
Fire and Rescue Service	1%	3
Safeguarding body / network	1%	3
Educational / research institution or student body	1%	2
Total non-blank responses	100%	218
Blank responses	-	4
Total responses	-	222

Table 2: Individuals represented in the consultation

Individuals represented in the consultation	Response percent (of non-blank responses)	Response total
Work in the health sector / social care / safeguarding	19 %	20
DHR author / DHR chair / DHR panel	14%	15
Family member or friend bereaved by domestic homicide	12%	13
Family member or friend bereaved by another type of domestic abuse related death (not a homicide)	11%	12
Work in the domestic abuse Sector	10%	11
Victim / survivor / lived experience / personally affected	9%	10
Academic / researcher / student	8%	9
Support worker / advocate / independent domestic violence advocate	6%	7
Work in the policing sector / community safety	5%	5
Other	4%	4
Work in the violence against women and girls sector	2%	2
Total non-blank responses	100%	108
Blank responses	-	1
Total responses	-	109

Consultation responses were received from all regions of England and Wales. For the optional question ‘Where do you live?’, 284 responses in total were given. The most common comment answer was South East England (22%). The full breakdown was as follows:

Table 3: Respondent locations

Location	Response percent (of non-blank responses)	Response Total
South East	22%	63
South West	15%	43
North West	10%	27
Greater London	10%	27
Yorkshire and The Humber	8%	23
East of England	8%	22
West Midlands	7%	21
North East	7%	19
East Midlands	7%	19
Prefer not to say	3%	8
Other (please specify)	2%	6
Wales	2%	5
Scotland	0%	1
Northern Ireland	0%	0
Total (non-blank responses)	100%	284
Blank responses	-	47
Total responses	-	331

Key questions

The consultation sought feedback on the proposed changes to the DHR legislation. The online survey included a total of 17 questions. Questions 1-3 and 7-17 were about the respondent and are summarised in the ‘Type of respondents’ section. Questions 4-6 were about the DHR legislation. These 3 questions were all closed questions, with the option to provide further comments or clarifications in a free text response. These were set out as follows:

• Question 4. Are you in favour of updating DHR legislation so that a DHR is considered for all deaths that have or appear to have been the result of domestic abuse, as domestic abuse is defined in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (see below)?
  • Yes
  • No
  • Don’t know
• Question 5. Are you in favour of renaming ‘domestic homicide reviews’?
  • Yes
  • No
  • Don’t know
• Question 6. If ‘domestic homicide reviews’ are renamed, should the government:
  • introduce the term ‘domestic abuse fatality review’ for cases of domestic abuse related deaths that are not homicides, whilst retaining the terms ‘domestic homicide review’ for domestic homicides
  • re-name all ‘domestic homicide reviews’ to ‘domestic abuse fatality reviews’
  • use another term (or terms) to better reflect the range of deaths which fall within the scope of a DHR (please specify)

Methodology  

Analysis consisted of producing frequency tables (count and percentage) for fixed-response survey questions and developing coding frameworks for free text responses. 

Three dominant codes were identified for each unique response, although there may have been more than three themes present in a respondent’s answer. The majority of the responses submitted via email followed the structure of the online survey, however this was not a requirement. Offline responses were combined with online responses prior to analysis.   

Percentages highlighted throughout the consultation response document have been rounded to the nearest whole number. Each question may have received a different number of responses, based on the type of question and the respondent’s choice of whether to answer. 

The consultation findings can only be used to record the various opinions of the participants who have chosen to respond to the consultation proposals. Due to the self-selecting nature of the public consultation method, findings should not be considered statistically representative of group or sector opinions.

Responses to specific questions

Question 4

Are you in favour of updating DHR legislation so that a DHR is considered for all deaths that have or appear to have been the result of domestic abuse, as domestic abuse is defined in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021?

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 introduced a statutory definition of domestic abuse that incorporates a range of abuses beyond ‘violence, abuse and neglect’ to include controlling or coercive behaviour, emotional abuse and economic abuse (in addition to other abusive behaviours). Explicitly including this definition in the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 would ensure that DHRs better contribute to our understanding of domestic abuse, and capture learnings to prevent fatal domestic abuse. 

The scope of the relational context in which domestic abuse can occur is also defined in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 as between individuals who are ‘personally connected’. At present, DHRs can be commissioned when a domestic homicide occurs in instances where individuals are cohabiting but not personally connected, which does not add to our understanding of domestic abuse. 

Question 4 asked respondents to answer the question with either a “Yes”, “No” or “Don’t know” response.

Respondents also had the option of commenting further on their answer to Q4 to explain the rationale behind their answer.

Consultation response 

There were 331 total responses to Q4.  

Three hundred and 11 respondents (94%) answered “Yes” in favour of updating DHR legislation so that a DHR is considered for all deaths that have or appear to have been the result of domestic abuse, 12 respondents (4%) answered ‘No’ and 8 respondents (2%) answered ‘Don’t know’.

Table 4: Are you in favour of updating DHR legislation so that a DHR is considered for all deaths that have or appear to have been the result of domestic abuse, as domestic abuse is defined in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021?

Answer	Response percent	Response total
Yes	94%	311
No	4%	12
Don’t know	2%	8
Total	100%	331

Of the 311 ‘Yes’ responses to Q4, 158 respondents commented further to explain their reasons in support of updating DHR legislation.  

The most common theme across answers was that updating DHR legislation would help to align DHRs with understanding domestic abuse, including supporting consistency in decisions to conduct DHRs when coercive control, economic abuse or psychological abuse were identified. The next most common theme was that further guidance would be required to provide clarity on existing DHR legislation stating a DHR is established following a death which the death of a person aged 16 or over has, or appears to have, resulted from violence, abuse or neglect. This wording was out of scope of this consultation, however further detail on how the government is responding is included in Section 4 of this consultation response.

Existing DHR legislation includes specific reference to ‘neglect’ and concerns were raised that removal of the term may have negative implications for public recognition of abuse amongst older victims and persons with a disability. Domestic abuse between those not ‘personally connected’ or within extended families and communities, such as ‘honour’-based abuse, or individuals living together e.g. flatmates, could be missed if the statutory definition of domestic abuse was adopted into DHR legislation. It was also noted that there may be an overlap of statutory reviews being commissioned for deaths of individuals ages 16-18, as DHRs are commissioned for individuals aged over 16 and the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 defines children as victims of domestic abuse in their own right if they are aged 18 or under and see, hear, or experience the effects of domestic abuse, and are related to either the perpetrator or victim.

Government response  

As there was overwhelming support for adding the statutory definition of domestic abuse into DHR legislation, the government will be updating the circumstances for when a DHR is considered to include the definition of domestic abuse as per the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. The result will be that a DHR should be considered where a death of person, aged 16 or over, has or appear to have been the result of domestic abuse, as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.   

The government is revising the statutory guidance underpinning DHRs and will be clarifying when a death has, or appears to have, resulted from domestic abuse as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (and the victim is aged 16 or over), and therefore whether a DHR should be commissioned. Further detail will also be included to support decision making for DHRs for deaths resulting from neglect, ‘honour’-based abuse and for conducting parallel reviews for individuals aged 16-18. It is our view that commissioning DHRs in instances where the victim’s death was a result of actions from an individual not ‘personally connected’ to them, and therefore not defined as domestic abuse, would not further our understanding of domestic abuse and will therefore be excluded from the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. 

The revised guidance will be publicly consulted on.

Question 5

Are you in favour of renaming ‘domestic homicide reviews’?

DHRs are also commissioned in instances of suicides linked to domestic abuse, unexplained deaths and in cases of neglect and therefore the term ‘homicide’ does not adequately represent the range of fatalities that can be reviewed. 

This consultation sought to understand the consensus regarding renaming DHRs in response to feedback from DHR practitioners that the term ‘homicide’ was confusing when reviewing a case that has not been ruled a homicide. Families and friends bereaved by suicide linked to domestic abuse had also been calling for alternative naming conventions for DHRs. We are committed to ensuring that all deaths linked to domestic abuse are treated as seriously as a domestic homicide, and for the reviews to reflect the circumstances. 

Question 5 asked respondents to answer the question with either a “Yes”, “No” or “Don’t know” response.

Consultation response 

Of the 331 responses given, 299 respondents selected ‘yes’, which was an overwhelming majority (90%). 19 respondents selected ‘no’ (6%), and 13 respondents selected ‘don’t know’ or gave an alternative answer (4%).  

This question included the option for respondents to explain their reasoning in a free-text box. The most frequent theme was renaming DHRs to align with the wider understanding and statutory definition of domestic abuse. Respondents raised examples of the family and friends of the victim relying on the DHR to better understand domestic abuse, confusion about the term homicide when the victim took their own life and a suggestion that an alternative name would be better suited to represent the breadth of deaths that are related to domestic abuse.  

The second most common themes were renaming DHRs would clarify that DHRs are also conducted for suicides linked to domestic abuse, and a request that further clarity be included in statutory guidance for conducting DHRs in these instances. Respondents commented that renaming DHRs would promote a greater understanding of suicides linked to domestic abuse, help to raise awareness of these deaths, and ensure that DHRs are commissioned in these instances. It was also noted that renaming DHRs may allow for a greater sense of justice for family and friends of victims of domestic abuse that took their own life as their loved one is being rightfully acknowledged.

Government response  

As the majority of respondents agreed that DHRs should be renamed, the government will be renaming DHRs. Question 6 of the consultation further helped to inform the new naming convention, which is discussed below. The responses explaining why DHRs should not be renamed were considered.  

Further detail on the provision of additional guidance to support the DHR process is included in the conclusion of the government’s response to this consultation.

Question 6

If ‘domestic homicide reviews’ are renamed, should the government: 

• Introduce the term ‘domestic abuse fatality review’ for cases of domestic abuse related deaths that are not homicides, whilst retaining the terms ‘domestic homicide review’ for domestic homicides?

• Re-name all ‘domestic homicide reviews’ to ‘domestic abuse fatality reviews’? 

• Use another term (or terms) to better reflect the range of deaths which fall within the scope of a DHR (please specify)?

Consultation response  

There was a clear majority in favour of how the government should proceed if DHRs were to be renamed. Just over half of respondents (52%) were in favour of renaming all DHRs ‘domestic abuse fatality reviews’. One quarter (25%) of respondents were in favour of using an alternative term (or terms) to better reflect the range of deaths which fall within the scope of a DHR, and a further 23% were in favour of introducing the term ‘domestic abuse fatality review’ for cases of domestic abuse related deaths that are not homicides, whilst retaining the term ‘domestic homicide review’ for domestic homicides. Twelve respondents did not provide an answer to this question.

Table 5: Opinions about re-naming DHRs

If DHRs are renamed, should the government:	Response percent (of non-blank responses)	Response number
Re-name all ‘domestic homicide reviews’ to ‘domestic abuse fatality reviews’	52%	166
Use another term (or terms) to better reflect the range of deaths which fall within the scope of a DHR (please specify)	25%	79
Introduce the term ‘domestic abuse fatality review’ for cases of domestic abuse related deaths that are not homicides, whilst retaining the terms ‘domestic homicide review’ for domestic homicides	23%	74
Total non-blank responses	100%	319
Blank responses	-	12
Total responses	-	331

Although a majority of respondents felt that DHRs should be renamed ‘domestic abuse fatality reviews’, the free text responses raised concerns about the suitability of the term ‘fatality’ for deaths in scope of a DHR. Respondents noted that the word fatality (as commonly defined) removed the culpability of perpetrators and that it would not be suitable when referencing DHRs for suicides linked to domestic abuse or unexplained deaths. 

Definitions of ‘fatality’ include reference to ‘a death caused by an accident or by violence’^{[footnote 3]}, ‘death resulting from a disaster’^{[footnote 4]} and ‘deaths resulting from war or traffic accidents’ ^{[footnote 5]}.  

A greater proportion of responses were in support for renaming all DHRs rather than having different names for DHRs for suicide linked to domestic abuse and DHRs. Those in support of using a single name for all DHRs suggested that having multiple names would be confusing and noted that a single name would ensure that there is parity across all deaths which fall within the scope of a DHR. Those in favour of retaining the term ‘homicide’ for DHR suggested that the term holds a significant amount of weight and that removing the specific reference to homicide could mean the seriousness of the offence is underplayed.  

Forty seven respondents offered an alternative term to ‘domestic abuse fatality review’. Respondents were able to offer more than one alternative term. Of all alternative terms suggested and analysed, approximately half recommended renaming DHRs ‘domestic abuse related death reviews’ (or using similar wording to convey this point) to better reflect the range of deaths which fall within the scope of a DHR. Other suggestions ranged from using both homicide and suicide in the name of the reviews and gesturing towards safeguarding, multi-agency working, and vulnerability.

Government response  

Since most responses (166; 52%) were in favour of renaming DHRs with a single term / phrase, the government will be implementing a single name for all DHRs to better reflect the range of deaths which fall in scope of a review. There were considerable concerns raised regarding the government’s suggestion of ‘domestic abuse fatality reviews’, and the most popular alternative was ‘domestic abuse related death reviews’.  

Renaming DHRs to domestic abuse related death reviews directly incorporates ‘domestic abuse’ and will ensure that the reviews continue to build on our understanding of deaths related to domestic abuse. For suicides linked to domestic abuse, there may not a clear perpetrator or criminal charges for domestic abuse and therefore the term ‘homicide’ is not applicable. The term homicide is also not suitable when a death has been deemed as unexplained or unexpected by a Coroner.  

The aim of a DHR is to identify lessons that can be learned from deaths related to domestic abuse, rather than to conduct a criminal investigation into the person responsible for the death.

Additional themes outside the scope of the consultation  

There were a number of additional themes coded from the free text responses which fall out of scope of amendments to DHR legislation. These themes, alongside action the government is taking to address them to ensure DHRs can continue to build on our understanding of domestic abuse and prevent domestic homicide, are outlined below. 

Respondents flagged that it was important that distinctions were made between reviewing domestic homicides and when the victim had taken their own life following domestic abuse. The government is revising the DHR statutory guidance and will be including detail on how to conduct reviews for suicides following a domestic abuse related death. The guidance will also seek to provide greater clarity to support local areas to determine which suicides should be considered for a review. The government will be consulting on the updated version of the statutory guidance in the coming months.  

Respondents also raised concerns about the time taken for the DHRs to be completed and published following the Home Office quality assurance process. We are seeking to reduce the time taken to complete DHRs and improve their quality by implementing mandatory training for individuals commissioned to conduct DHRs (DHR Chairs). Chairing a DHR requires a high-level of skill, navigating local agencies and stakeholders, engaging with the family and friends of victims of domestic homicide and a working knowledge of domestic abuse. Implementing comprehensive training for DHR Chairs will ensure individuals can effectively conduct a DHR, identify recommendations and produce a high quality report. 

We have also committed to creating a stronger oversight mechanism for DHRs to ensure that their recommendations are implemented and achieve real change in policy and service provision to safeguard victims of domestic abuse and prevent domestic homicide. Overall, we are seeking to create a more proactive approach to the reviews process and ultimately decrease time scales.

As outlined in the economic note published alongside the consultation, the government does not foresee that the proposed changes would increase the number of DHRs commissioned. Whilst we appreciate that DHRs can be time consuming and expensive, they are critical in furthering our understanding of domestic abuse and preventing further domestic homicides.

Conclusion and next steps

We would like to thank all those that responded to this consultation, particularly those who have been personally affected by fatal domestic abuse.  

From the responses received, there was a consensus around adding the statutory definition of domestic abuse into DHR legislation, therefore the government will be updating the circumstances for when a DHR is considered to include the definition of domestic abuse as per the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.  

Responses to the consultation were overwhelmingly in favour of renaming DHRs to better reflect the range of deaths which fall in scope of a review. Half of responses agreed to renaming all DHRs to a single name rather than retaining DHR in instances of domestic homicide and using an alternative name for reviews into suicides linked to domestic abuse. The consultation response evidenced less support for the government’s suggestion of ‘domestic abuse fatality reviews’, and the most popular alternative suggested was ‘domestic abuse related death reviews’. As a result of the consensus to rename DHRs, a preference for a single term and a majority alternative name proposed, the government will be amending the name of DHRs to ‘domestic abuse related death reviews’.

The government will seek to make the proposed amendments through the Victims and Prisoners Bill. The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 covers England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. However, the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and the associated statutory definition of domestic abuse only apply within England and Wales. As such, this amendment will change the name of DHRs and the circumstances in which reviews are commissioned for domestic abuse related deaths in England and Wales only.

We are currently revising the statutory guidance underpinning DHRs and will be including further detail on conducting reviews into suicide linked to domestic abuse, conducting parallel statutory reviews and ensuring domestic abuse amongst older victims continues to be recognised. The guidance will be subject to consultation.  

As part of the DHR reform commitments outlined in the Tackling Domestic Abuse Plan 2022, we are procuring mandatory training for DHR Chairs and implementing a more robust oversight mechanisms to ensure recommendations and learnings from reviews are implemented to achieve real change.

We are making progress towards improving the DHR process and are grateful to the family and friends of victims of domestic abuse and domestic homicide and those involved in the DHR process for their continued support in the critical task of better understanding and preventing domestic homicide.

Consultation principles

The principles that government departments and other public bodies should adopt for engaging stakeholders when developing policy and legislation are set out in the Cabinet Office Consultation Principles 2018.

Footnotes

1. Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (legislation.gov.uk)  ↩

2. Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (legislation.gov.uk) ↩

3. Definition of ‘fatality’ - Collins English Dictionary ↩

4. Definition of ‘fatality’ - Merriam-Webster Dictionary ↩

5. Definition of ‘fatality’- Cambridge Dictionary ↩