A memorial to French victims of domestic violence. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

"Isolated incidents": how the laws around domestic violence are failing its victims

An investigation into the murder of Natalie Esack by her estranged husband reveals it followed a campaign of terror waged by a man who could not countenance finally losing control over his victim. But police and prosecutors can only respond to individuals threats and acts of violence. It's time for a change in the law.

On the 30 April 2012, a former police detective called Ivan Esack killed his estranged wife, Natalie.

Esack walked into Natalie's hair salon in Ashford, Kent, just after nine in the morning, and stabbed her eleven times with a kitchen knife. He stabbed her with “such ferocity, the 8in blade bent and the tip broke off”. For this, he was sentenced to 28 years in prison. Reports from the time dubbed Natalie a “tragic hairdresser”.

Women murdered by men are often described by the media as tragic. There is a sense in that word of catastrophe, of horror, of something out of the ordinary. Something that could not have been prevented. Perhaps that word gives us a sense of comfort in the face of such brutality. This could not have been predicted, there is nothing we could have done. This is a freak accident.

Such words may comfort us, but they are dangerous, and our comfort comes at a cost of reckoning with a reality that we must face if we are serious about tackling the epidemic of domestic violence. And make no mistake: it is an epidemic. The prevalence of domestic abuse means that in some countries 40-70 per cent of female murder victims are killed by a husband or boyfriend, according to the UN. It is an epidemic to which we are so inured that the steady reports of abuse, of beatings, of assaults, of imprisonment, of death, barely register. They are not front-page news. After all, to put it bluntly, “man kills partner”, is not news. It is the opposite of new. It is old. Tragically old.

Last week a Domestic Homicide Review - a multi-agency investigation - into Natalie's murder was released. Like so many before it, the review found that this death was not a freak occurrence that could not have been prevented. Rather, it found “evidence of escalating abuse towards [Natalie Esack] in the six months before her death and risk factors in [Ivan Esack's] behaviour”.

A report from Paladin, the National Stalking Advocacy Service, reveals that the risk factors were observable more than six months prior to her murder. The relationship was abusive “from early on”, with Esack belittling and demeaning Natalie in an effort to keep her pliable and under his control. She was not allowed to leave the house without his permission and had to “check in” with him constantly. Nevertheless, she managed to leave the relationship on more than one occasion – but found herself on the receiving end of incessant calls and messages, alternately abusive and pleading, that would go on, one after the other, until she finally gave in and replied. At one point he was calling her more than forty time a day. He would turn up at her work, at her home, threatening, intimidating, pleading. When Natalie finally left for good and started seeing someone new, Esack told her that “she was a dead woman walking”. “Tick-tock, tick-tock”, he texted her. In one telephone conversation, he presented Natalie with her options: “Death, death, death”. Natalie contacted the police four times about Esack. No action was taken. He was classified as “medium risk”.

No one considering the evidence in full can come to any conclusion other than that this was a campaign of terror waged by a man who could not countenance finally losing control over his victim. But that was exactly the problem: the evidence was not considered holistically. All of Natalie's reports of Esack's violence or threats were treated by the police as separate incidents. This may sounds like police incompetence. But it is also a failure of law.

At present, domestic violence itself is not a crime. The Crown Prosecution Service prosecutes perpetrators under assault, burglary, rape, kidnapping. They prosecute single incidents of physical violence, and tend to focus on injury level. The law as it stands allows them to do little else: it provides no remit to recognise a victim of domestic abuse as suffering from an ongoing campaign of coercive control. Rather, she has been punched; she has been thrown down the stairs; she has been stabbed. Tragically. Unpredictably. She has been killed.

Tthis week, the campaign organisation Co-ordinated Action Against Domestic Abuse released figures to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary National Oversight Group which clearly show that the more high-risk the case, the greater the likelihood and severity of coercive and controlling behaviour. This data confirms Paladin's claim that it is in the cases where coercive control is present that victims are most likely to be murdered.

In 2013, the Home Office updated its definition of domestic violence to include coercive control, but there has been no corresponding change in the law. Some of the most dangerous cases, although known to the police - although preventable - are continuing to feed the drip-drip-drip of tragic isolated incidents. As the government heads into recess, they might like to listen to those campaigning for a change in the law to allow police and prosecutors to look beyond each individual incident, and think about turning off the tap.

Update, 7 August 2014: This article originally referred to domestic violence as "the largest cause of morbidity in women aged 19-44". However, this was not contained in the WHO report cited as the source. The article was amended to state that “in some countries 40-70 per cent of female murder victims are killed by a husband or partner”, a statistic contained within the report in question.

Caroline Criado-Perez is a freelance journalist and feminist campaigner. She is also the co-founder of The Women's Room and tweets as @CCriadoPerez.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

PMQs review: Jeremy Corbyn prompts Tory outrage as he blames Grenfell Tower fire on austerity

To Conservative cries of "shame on you!", the Labour leader warned that "we all pay a price in public safety" for spending cuts.

A fortnight after the Grenfell Tower fire erupted, the tragedy continues to cast a shadow over British politics. Rather than probing Theresa May on the DUP deal, Jeremy Corbyn asked a series of forensic questions on the incident, in which at least 79 people are confirmed to have died.

In the first PMQs of the new parliament, May revealed that the number of buildings that had failed fire safety tests had risen to 120 (a 100 per cent failure rate) and that the cladding used on Grenfell Tower was "non-compliant" with building regulations (Corbyn had asked whether it was "legal").

After several factual questions, the Labour leader rose to his political argument. To cries of "shame on you!" from Tory MPs, he warned that local authority cuts of 40 per cent meant "we all pay a price in public safety". Corbyn added: “What the tragedy of Grenfell Tower has exposed is the disastrous effects of austerity. The disregard for working-class communities, the terrible consequences of deregulation and cutting corners." Corbyn noted that 11,000 firefighters had been cut and that the public sector pay cap (which Labour has tabled a Queen's Speech amendment against) was hindering recruitment. "This disaster must be a wake-up call," he concluded.

But May, who fared better than many expected, had a ready retort. "The cladding of tower blocks did not start under this government, it did not start under the previous coalition governments, the cladding of tower blocks began under the Blair government," she said. “In 2005 it was a Labour government that introduced the regulatory reform fire safety order which changed the requirements to inspect a building on fire safety from the local fire authority to a 'responsible person'." In this regard, however, Corbyn's lack of frontbench experience is a virtue – no action by the last Labour government can be pinned on him. 

Whether or not the Conservatives accept the link between Grenfell and austerity, their reluctance to defend continued cuts shows an awareness of how politically vulnerable they have become (No10 has announced that the public sector pay cap is under review).

Though Tory MP Philip Davies accused May of having an "aversion" to policies "that might be popular with the public" (he demanded the abolition of the 0.7 per cent foreign aid target), there was little dissent from the backbenches – reflecting the new consensus that the Prime Minister is safe (in the absence of an attractive alternative).

And May, whose jokes sometimes fall painfully flat, was able to accuse Corbyn of saying "one thing to the many and another thing to the few" in reference to his alleged Trident comments to Glastonbury festival founder Michael Eavis. But the Labour leader, no longer looking fearfully over his shoulder, displayed his increased authority today. Though the Conservatives may jeer him, the lingering fear in Tory minds is that they and the country are on divergent paths. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

0800 7318496