Shaping Priority Services for UK Victims of Honour‐Based Violence/Abuse, Forced Marriage, and Female Genital Mutilation
| Date | 01 December 2018 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/hojo.12287 |
| Author | PAMELA COX,RUTH WEIR,AISHA K. GILL |
| Published date | 01 December 2018 |
The Howard Journal Vol57 No 4. December 2018 DOI: 10.1111/hojo.12287
ISSN 2059-1098, pp. 576–595
Shaping Priority Services for UK
Victims of Honour-Based
Violence/Abuse, Forced Marriage,
and Female Genital Mutilation
AISHA K. GILL, PAMELA COX and RUTH WEIR
Aisha K. Gill is Professor of Criminology University of Roehampton; Pamela
Cox is Professor of Sociology, and Ruth Weir is a Doctoral Student,
University of Essex
Abstract: Victims of honour-based violence/abuse (HBV/A), forced marriage (FM), and
female genital mutilation (FGM) are now defined as ‘priority groups’ in the UK’s Code
of Practice for Victims of Crime (commonly known as the Victims’ Code of Practice or
VCOP). These groups encompass: those who are affected by the most serious forms of
crime; those persistently targeted by crime; those vulnerable by age or physical or mental
health; and those classified as intimidated victims. The Code recommends that these
victims receive a ‘priority service’ that includes rapid needs assessment and enhanced
support. This article draws upon research commissioned by a county police force in
southern England which wanted to develop its provision for ‘priority service’ victims. It
analyses data gathered from interviews with victims and multi-agency practitioners and
explores four dimensions of victim and practitioner experience: recording and locating
victims; initiating a case; modes of protecting victims; and closing a case. It also discusses
future directions and challenges for priority victim work in England and elsewhere, and
identifies the many challenges experienced by practitioners working to support the victims
of HBV/A, FM, and FGM. It argues that the voices of both victims and practitioners
must be considered in the co-creation of future priority services in this field.
Keywords: female genital mutilation (FGM); forced marriage (FM); honour-
based violence (HBV); priority victims
UK responses to honour-based violence/abuse (HBV/A)1and the related
offences of forced marriage (FM), and female genital mutilation (FGM)
are changing rapidly (HM Inspectorate of Constabulary 2015). The Vic-
tims’ Code of Practice (VCOP) was amended in 2015 to better meet the
needs of ‘priority victims’, that is, those defined as affected by the most se-
rious crimes; those persistently targeted by crime; those vulnerable by age
or physical or mental health; and, those classified as intimidated victims
(Crown Prosecution Service 2017a). These groups can expect to receive a
576
C
2018 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK
The Howard Journal Vol57 No 4. December 2018
ISSN 2059-1098, pp. 576–595
priority service that includes rapid needs assessment and enhanced sup-
port. They now include those who have experienced alleged and proven
HBV/A, FM, and FGM. In a further and related development, the Na-
tional Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC), the body with overall responsibility
for investigating alleged criminal activity across police forces, recently pub-
lished a revised strategy on HBV/A, FM, and FGM (National Police Chiefs’
Council 2015) that particularly emphasises developing appropriate multi-
agency responses to meet the needs of those affected by these offences.
This article analyses data gathered from interviews with priority victims
and the multi-agency practitioners working with them. It explores four ar-
eas of victim and practitioner experience: recording and locating victims;
initiating a case; ways to protect victims; and closing a case. It also discusses
future directions and challenges for priority victim work in England and
more widely.
The new approaches to victims of HBV/A, FM, and FGM outlined above
are rooted in earlier (inter)national initiatives, some dating back decades.
At the international level, United Nations (UN)-backed programmes now
aim to prevent violence against women and girls (VAWG) and to frame it as
human rights abuse. Many states now require local authorities and police
forces to have clear strategies for reducing VAWG (MOPAC (2017); for the
UK’s National Statement of Expectations, see Gov.uk (2016)). In Europe,
significant developments have included resolutions on VAWG from all
European Union (EU) member states and the Council of Europe. The
most substantial of these is the Convention on Preventing and Combating
Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (CETS No. 210, Istanbul
Convention) which came into force in August 2014. It recognises violence
against women as a human rights violation and outlines measures designed
to prevent such violence, to prosecute its perpetrators, and to protect its
victims. The EU signed the convention in June 2017 and it has since been
ratified by 27 Council of Europe member states. A further 17 states have
signed but not yet ratified the convention.2
The UK’s broader VCOP has been informed by these global and Eu-
ropean developments but also by long-standing international campaigns
to recognise the rights and needs of all crime victims more generally
(Spencer and Walklate 2016). Some scholars and practitioners argue that
this new level of (inter)national recognition of gender-based violence af-
fecting women and girls across class, communities, and cultures, raises
questions about the ‘distinctiveness’ of HBV/A, FM, and FGM (see, for ex-
ample, Gharaibeh 2016; Olwan 2013, 2014). This article considers – and
challenges – that viewpoint. One source of that challenge rests on the ac-
tivities of grass-roots activists and community-based support groups that
have played a leading role in driving the development of new and specific
legal provisions for victims of HBV/A, FM, and FGM (for an overview,see,
Gangoli et al. 2018; Graca 2017; Mulivill, Gangoli and Hester 2018;
Sanders-McDonagh and Neville 2017), in particular. Indeed, it was a free-
dom of information request made by one of these activist groups – the
London-based Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation (IK-
WRO) – that prompted publication of the first set of national HBV/A
577
C
2018 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
To continue reading
Request your trial