Domestic Abuse Act 2021 Committee

The committee scrutinised how the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 has changed multi-agency working, with witnesses broadly welcoming the Act’s statutory footing, broader definition of abuse, and recognition of children as victims in their own right. Across both panels, the main concerns were implementation gaps: inconsistent MARAC practice, weak guidance for child-focused and minoritised-victim pathways, immigration-status barriers to safety, insufficient move-on accommodation, and patchy, short-term or underfunded specialist provision. Witnesses repeatedly pressed for longer-term funding, better operational guidance, stronger cross-system integration, and more consistent learning from domestic abuse-related death reviews.

The Committee scrutinised how the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 is working in practice for economic abuse, technology-facilitated abuse, spiritual abuse and honour-based abuse. Witnesses argued that the Act’s definitions and guidance have improved recognition of coercive control and children as victims, but that implementation is uneven: tech abuse is still treated like an online-safety issue, honour-based abuse is often missed because agencies still think in intimate-partner terms, and spiritual abuse remains unnamed. Witnesses recommended clearer drafting, stronger statutory guidance, better training and data collection, more explicit links between honour-based abuse and domestic abuse, and a more gender-sensitive but not gendered operational response.

This session features a post-legislative examination of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 by a Lords committee, drawing on academic experts and survivor-led charities to assess effectiveness and identify gaps. Key concerns include: lack of access to public funds for many migrant women under immigration status rules, calls to broaden definitions (including honour-based abuse, coercive control, and economic abuse), and the persistence of underfunding for specialist, by-and-for services. Witnesses press for independent inquiries into femicide, better data collection on ethnicity, improved court practices and risk assessments, and expanded supports (including disabled, LGBT+, elderly, and male victims). They also push for policy changes such as a dedicated violence-against-men-and-boys strategy, national standards for accessible refuge provision, and tighter enforcement of protection orders.

The committee conducted post-legislative scrutiny of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, examining whether the Act has translated into tangible improvements for victims and front-line responders. Evidence from DCI Leeann Saunders (South Wales Police) highlighted definitional clarifications (coercive and controlling behaviour; non-fatal strangulation) and a culture shift in policing, alongside practical initiatives such as rapid video response (RVR) and Diogel-style practice. Medina Johnson (IRISi) described the evidence base for the IRIS programme, the Pathfinder project, and the need for sustained, co-located, and funded training and referral pathways within health systems. Patriche Bentick (BASW) stressed collaborative practice, early multi-agency engagement, and attention to children, coercive control, and victimless prosecutions. Gaps identified include funding sustainability, Welsh devolution alignment, economic abuse, risks to minoritised groups, and the need for a more integrated, holistic approach across health, social care, and judicial systems.

The committee scrutinised how the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 has affected children as victims and how the wider system (education, health, social services, policing) interlocks to support them. Witnesses highlighted progress in recognising children as victims, but identified gaps and barriers: protection notices/orders do not cover under-16s; funding for sustained, trauma-informed child services remains insecure; data on children’s experiences in family courts is weak; and there is a need for a dedicated family-justice strategy with a cross-department data framework. There were clear government commitments around rolling out child-focused courts/pathways, expanding specialist domestic abuse support (IDVAs/CHIDVAs), and improving training and multi‑agency collaboration, but witnesses urged more explicit resourcing and coordination to ensure children are treated as victims in their own right across all agencies from health and education to social care and policing.

The session scrutinises the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, focusing on how post-legislative changes play out in domestic-abuse cases in criminal and family courts. Key issues include: (i) delays and a postcode lottery in magistrates’ and Crown Court listings, with victim-drop-off risks and cases listing into the 2030s; (ii) shifts in case mix toward the Crown Court and serious offences (e.g., strangulation); (iii) use and limits of victimless prosecutions and evidence-led charging; (iv) special-measures in court (screens, video links) and associated logistical, infrastructure, and eligibility-flexibility concerns; (v) the widened definition of “personally connected” and minority access to justice; (vi) the role and funding of Independent Domestic Violence Advisers (IDVAs) and specialist DA courts, including Pathfinder courts; (vii) cross-examination reforms in family courts, Qualified Legal Representatives (QLRs) deserts, and calls for professional-certification in domestic-violence cases; (viii) trauma-informed training for judges, prosecutors, and defence; (ix) child-victims’ voice and long-term harm, with calls to integrate broader family-law practice and public-law learnings; (x) data gaps and the need for systemic multiagency coordination and a robust DA-best-practice framework beyond pilot status.