Defendants are “gaming the system” in specialist domestic violence courts by intimidating partners into not appearing in the expectation that magistrates will drop charges, a critical report has said.

The report, commissioned by the police and crime commissioner for Northumbria, Dame Vera Baird QC, was based on the monitoring more than 220 cases in the north-east of England. It suggests those in which the complainant does not appear are dismissed too readily and that criminal justice services are under-resourced.

The defendants, almost all men, continued to exert coercive control over their victims through the mechanism of the courts system, the study says. Too few independent domestic violence advisers (IDVAs) were seen at court and irrelevant mitigation pleas such as the perpetrator being drunk were regularly offered, it notes.

There is a an extremely high dropout rate for domestic abuse cases while they are in the hands of the police or the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and when they get to court. The charity Women’s Aid estimates that only between a fifth and a quarter of domestic abuse victims ever report attacks to anyone in authority.



In 21 cases at one court centre, defendants entered a not-guilty plea and asked for a trial. On the various dates fixed, the observers noticed, 12 of them pleaded guilty as soon as the victim turned up and before they had given any evidence.

“Only one judge said that ‘gaming the system’ should stop,” Baird said. “It’s an unholy, if unwitting, pact with the court, who can almost be guaranteed to dismiss the case at trial if the complainant doesn’t turn up.

“In 13 cases out of another 32 observed, that’s exactly what happened. The cases were dismissed, in over half of them despite arguments to the contrary from the CPS.”

Scrapping cases when the complainant does not attend calls into question how much these courts understand coercive control, Baird said.



The report involved careful recording of hearings at specialist domestic violence courts (SDVCs) in the north-east of England by volunteer observers from Soroptimist International who had been trained by the CPS and court service. The cases were monitored at Bedlington and Gateshead between July and November last year.

The study – entitled Specialist Domestic Violence Courts: How special are they? – has been published as the government prepares its domestic abuse bill, which aims to improve protection for victims and the way in which perpetrators are dealt with by the criminal justice system.



The Office for National Statistics recorded that 1.9 million adults aged 16 to 59 experienced domestic abuse in 2017. Police recorded 1.1 million domestic abuse related incidents of which 46% were recorded as crimes. The incidents accounted for 32% of all recorded violent crime.



SDVCs were rolled out nationally from 2005 based on “problem-solving courts” developed in Canada and Australia. The magistrates, prosecutors, police and court staff involved are all supposed to have had specialist training.

When the service was established, IVDAs were intended to attend preparatory and sentencing hearings to represent the complainants’ interests about such issues as bail, which are decided at those times.

The absence of IDVAs and inadequate training for staff are resource issues that undermine vital components of the specialist courts, the report says.

On mitigation pleas offered to courts, the report says that the most common was that the offender was drunk. “Although it is understandable that defence lawyers will seek to use the presence of alcohol to mitigate for their clients, it is a pity that nobody in the court made its irrelevance clear,” it says. Alcohol intake is not a mitigating factor under the guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council, it points out.

In its recommendations, the report calls for further training for court staff, ensuring that domestic abuse trials are always heard by specialist courts, providing more support to enable victims to go to court and not assuming non-attendance by complainants is grounds for dropping a case.



“Domestic abuse complainants deserve a justice system that understands their needs and our new report shows that there are gaps, in funding and even in understanding of the issue which gave rise to these special courts in the first place,” Baird said.



“Victims expose themselves to enhanced risk when they report to police and agree to testify and full appreciation of that should feed into every step taken thereafter by the justice agencies. A wider review of how these long-established courts are working would be advantageous as we focus on preparing to legislate a new domestic violence bill.”

A CPS spokesperson said: “Making sure victims of domestic abuse feel supported through the justice system is a priority and Specialist Domestic Abuse Courts play an important role. Working with Independent Domestic Violence Advisors, we have seen good progress in helping victims feel supported by providing special measures like screens in court and pre-court familiarisation visits.”

A spokesperson for Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service said: “These specialist courts are key to help minimise distress to victims, who are supported by specially trained staff throughout the process. Measures are available to ensure victims and defendants never come face to face and that there is no cross- examination by the accused.

“We continue to improve the way domestic abuse is dealt with throughout the justice system, and will consider the report.”