Transparency data

Responses to super-complaint report: A duty to protect

Responses from bodies subject to recommendations and actions in the report: A duty to protect.

Applies to England and Wales

Documents

National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) response to recommendations

Request an accessible format.
If you use assistive technology (such as a screen reader) and need a version of this document in a more accessible format, please email [email protected]. Please tell us what format you need. It will help us if you say what assistive technology you use.

Home Office response to recommendations from 'A duty to protect'

Request an accessible format.
If you use assistive technology (such as a screen reader) and need a version of this document in a more accessible format, please email [email protected]. Please tell us what format you need. It will help us if you say what assistive technology you use.

MoJ response to recommendations from 'A duty to protect'

Request an accessible format.
If you use assistive technology (such as a screen reader) and need a version of this document in a more accessible format, please email [email protected]. Please tell us what format you need. It will help us if you say what assistive technology you use.

Details

In August 2021 HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS), the College of Policing and the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) published a report in response to the super-complaint submitted by the Centre for Women’s Justice on the police use of protective measures in cases involving violence against women and girls.

The report made recommendations to chief constables, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. The report also included actions for HMICFRS and the College of Policing regarding their own work. The details of these recommendations and actions are listed in section 2 of A duty to protect.

HMICFRS

The report includes three actions for HMICFRS.  Details of these and the HMICFRS response is included below:

Action 1

‘In light of changes to pre-charge bail, we propose that HMICFRS should consider future inspection activity to review the impact of the changes’.

Action 3

‘HMICFRS to continue to assess use of DVPN/DVPOs and any new domestic abuse orders through its wider inspection activity’.

Action 4

‘HMICFRS should consider future inspection activity in respect of restraining orders, including supervision and monitoring use of these by police forces. After a suitable period when more data is available from the inspection activity, HMICFRS and His Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI) should consider undertaking a review to assess how effective the police and CPS are at applying for restraining orders, and if there is any point of failure within the process that needs to be addressed’.

HMICFRS response

HMICFRS will, during its planning cycle, review whether inspection activity and/or monitoring should be undertaken to consider how issues raised in this super-complaint are being addressed by forces. Any proposed inspection activity would be subject to Home Office funding. HMICFRS is continuing to assess the use of DVPNs and DVPOs through its wider inspection activity.

College of Policing

Action 2

‘The College of Policing will update its guidance to reflect changes needed on the implementation of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill and to clarify that officers may consider that if a suspect were to be released from police detention on bail with lawfully imposed conditions, the need for those conditions may well fulfil the ‘necessity test’ for arrest.’

College of Policing response

The College will update its ‘Authorised Professional Practice’ (APP) on domestic abuse, in line with this action, when the new bill passes into law (due spring 2022).

Updates to this page

Published 7 June 2022

Sign up for emails or print this page