Crime

The National Police Chiefs’ Council Has Surrendered to Gender Ideology

Posted by ukvillafan on April 10, 2022
Posted in: Crime, Domestic Abuse, Feminism, Gender identity, Legal Issues, Politics, Sex and gender. Leave a comment

In light of the story today in the Mail Online, I have written to the NPCC as follows.

“Dear Sirs,

I am writing to you following the disclosure in the Mail Online this morning of your recent policy guidance on strip searches. Your organisation may think that, in prioritising alleged ‘inclusivity’ over the sex-based rights of both women and men, it is in tune with public thinking, but you most definitely are not. You have, like many other national and regional organisations, public bodies and businesses, allowed your thinking to be clouded by ideologues and you have done so, no doubt, for fear of being criticised by this very vocal minority. Either that or you just think it is cool to be trendy.

All trans women are biological males. Most trans women (between 90 to 95%) not only do not go through any gender reassignment surgery but do not have hormone treatment either. In addition, we have moved on from the situation where the majority of individuals who transition do so because of some deep-seated gender dysphoria. It is now just as likely to be a life-choice as it is to be related to treating a particular feeling of profound distress.

Whilst any right-minded person recognises that individuals can make whatever decisions they like about how to live their lives, including choosing a gender identity different to the sex into which they were born, that does not mean that rational thinking should be sacrificed on the alter of ideology. A strip search is, by definition, an extremely intimate procedure and hitherto the guidelines have been clear, as I understand it, that they should be carried out by officers of the same biological sex as the person being searched. Those guidelines were in place for very obvious reasons – the dignity and protection of both the person being searched and the officer performing the search to name but two.

There is no adequate reason for those earlier guidelines to be altered but your organisation has done so nevertheless. The very fact that the new guidance emphasises the feelings and sensitivities of a trans officer who might be involved in a search to the complete exclusion of the dignity and feelings of the person being searched tells us all that we need to know. I have no doubt that this change to your guidance has been influenced by Stonewall or another similar organisation. It would not surprise me in the slightest if the drafting of it was farmed out to someone with an activist agenda – it certainly reads that way.

Whatever else they might be, trans women are (and will forever remain) biologically male. The vast majority will have retained their full male anatomy, as detailed above. There are circumstances where it is perfectly legitimate to prioritise the needs of individuals based on their biological sex, especially women who have, historically, been the victims of aggression and violence perpetrated by biological males, including several police officers. A strip search is clearly such an occasion.

The mantra ‘trans women are women and trans men are men’ is nothing more than an expression of a political ideology which is, in fact, completely divorced from reality. It is a calculated tactic to obfuscate language with the aim of removing sex-based rights so that they can be replaced by those based on gender. No trans woman can possibly understand what it is to be or to feel like a woman. Any trans woman who thinks that this new guidance is appropriate and that it is thus discriminatory for a woman to object to being strip-searched by a biological male who ‘identifies’ as a woman clearly has not an inkling of what it really means to be female. If they did, they would know 100% that it is a violation of a woman’s dignity and personal space, not least because the likelihood is that the vast majority of women who find themselves in such circumstances will have had a lifetime of violence or abuse at the hands of men!

This new guidance is equally inappropriate for female officers who might find themselves being ordered to strip-search a trans woman who is a fully intact male on pain of disciplinary action if they refuse.

Your new guidance is misogyny writ large and needs to be withdrawn. If you do so, you might incur the wrath of the vocal activists but you will receive the support of the vast majority of the general public. It is time for organisations like yours to escape from the influence of the activist groups like Stonewall. Not only are they nothing more than a very loud voice claiming to represent a very small minority, but they do not actually represent anywhere near all of the trans community. Bullies become emboldened when no one stands up to them. The NPCC needs to take a lead by respecting the sex-based rights and needs of women whilst seeking to be, of course, inclusive towards trans people generally and, in so doing, rejecting the bullying tactics of ideological groups.”

The Labour Party No Longer Represents The Interests Of Women

Posted by ukvillafan on April 4, 2022
Posted in: Child Abuse, Crime, Feminism, Freedom of Expression, Gender identity, Legal Issues, Politics, Sex and gender. Tagged: , , . Leave a comment

The British Labour Party is in thrall to a new Militant Tendency. I am not the first to say so. This time, however. the leadership is fully on board and in the grip of the ideologues.

Dawn Butler MP famously told Richard Madeley that. “A child is born without a sex”. In September 2021 Sir Keir Starmer appeared on the Andrew Marr show on the BBC and said that the words ‘only women have a cervix’ “should not be said.” This was in response to a direct question from Marr that arose from the fact that one of Starmer’s Labour MPs, Rosie Duffield, had said precisely that. In early March this year, Starmer gave an interview to the London Times where he stated categorically that ‘trans women are women.’ These are three of many examples that demonstrate unequivocally that Labour has succumbed to gender identity ideology and the consequences of this abject surrender could be catastrophic. For some, they already have been.

The cervix is part of the female anatomy. Males are not born with a cervix any more than they are born with a uterus or ovaries. Thus everyone with a cervix most definitely was born female. On the face of it, therefore, saying ‘only women have a cervix’ is not only permissible but scientifically accurate. However, the proponents of gender identity ideology cannot allow the norms of biology and sex to go unchallenged as this would fundamentally undermine the ‘theory’ upon which it is based. Thus it is essential for the gender activist that it is generally accepted that trans men are men (and trans women are women). It is Labour’s adoption of this mantra that enables Starmer to distance himself from Rosie Duffield, for if trans men are men then men can have a cervix too.

In the real world of course, as opposed to the virtual world of the social justice warrior, trans men are not men and trans women are not women. This is so obvious to the average person because few people actually confuse the concepts of gender and sex even if they might struggle with defining them. They know that a person cannot change his or her biological sex.

The debate began in academia, moved into esoteric political circles and is currently having a disproportionate effect on real life policy-making. Powerful lobby groups, such as Stonewall, have convinced political parties, not just Labour, that gender identity is more important than biological sex, that the trans cause is equivalent to the long-since successful battle for gay and lesbian rights and that if you are not fully behind this cause then you are a bigot, a TERF (trans exclusionary radical feminist), a transphobe or worse. Anyone with a different view is bullied, hounded and silenced. They are prevented from speaking on university campuses, targeted by campaigns aimed at getting them fired, intimidated into silence in the workplace, threatened openly with violence, told to ‘shut the fuck up’.

The gender ideologues are on a mission to replace sex-based rights because the binary nature of biological sex is inconvenient. Unless the primacy of sex is overturned then the central claims of trans women being women and trans men being men will be exposed for the nonsense that they are. The activists know this full well – cue the all out assault on language, science and rational thinking in the guise of a rights campaign. It has been a slick and successful one. The propaganda has infiltrated not just the political parties but major institutions such as police forces, business organisations, even the NHS. It is a seductive message of victimhood and oppression fuelled by misleading claims and targeted at the susceptible audience of the ‘enlightened’ left. Those of us who consider ourselves to be occupants of the liberal end of the political spectrum pride ourselves on being champions of the downtrodden and those who are society’s outcasts. It is a badge of honour for us, not because it makes us feel virtuous (although it does) but because we know it is the right thing to do. This is why the activists’ message is almost irresistible, but resisted it must be.

Those pushing this ideology say that trans people are the most vulnerable members of the community. In support of this they often state with certainty that trans people are more likely to be murdered than others or face greater levels of discrimination and thus need better protection, more rights. The objective is to change the law to permit simple gender self-identification where living as the opposite sex for three months and a statutory declaration that you identify as a man or a woman will be sufficient to enable you to be recognised in law as the opposite sex. Therein lies one of the biggest ironies of all. For while the activists denigrate the whole idea of sex-based rights and promote the primacy of gender, they want to be able to say that their feelings of identity mean that they ARE the opposite sex.

The truth behind the lies is illuminating. As far as it is possible to ascertain, there were seven trans-identified individuals murdered in the UK in the ten year period from 2008 to 2017 making trans individuals about one tenth as likely to be murdered than the average person. Of the seven identified murders in these figures three victims were sex workers and three others were killed by drug dealers or fellow drug users. Both of these lifestyles vastly increase the risk of being a murder victim (by 18 times in the case of sex workers in London). Only one of the cases suggests that the gender and/or sexuality of the victim may have been a major contributing factor in the crime. All of the victims were biological males as were all of the murderers.

Interestingly, over the same period there were more trans individuals who were perpetrators of homicides than victims. All of those perpetrators were biological males. There is thus no evidence to support the claim that trans people are at greater risk of murder in the UK than the general population. Indeed, quite the opposite, and being a trans man seems particularly safe.

As far as discrimination is concerned the fact is that transgender individuals have exactly the same protections as all other groups at risk, as the Equality Act 2010 makes being transgender a protected category. What the activists really mean is that when their dogmatic view is challenged by critics of gender ideology, they consider this to be hateful, transphobic and discriminatory. Being gender critical is categorised as heresy and the promulgators are harassed and hounded with all the zealotry one might expect from the fervently religious. Far from being the oppressed, trans activists are the oppressors. How else is it possible for someone to lose their employment merely for holding gender critical views, as Maya Forstater did? Why was it necessary for there to be an appeal court hearing to establish that her gender critical views are a protected belief? Without trans ideology having become the new norm, how does a respected academic like Kathleen Stock end up being forced out of her position?

Gender identity theory is leading political parties and major institutions down a path towards disaster. The insistence upon a change in the law to facilitate gender self-identification without any gatekeeping will lead to, amongst other things, unfairness in women’s sport, the elimination of sex-based rights and greater levels of violence and abuse, with women and children, in particular, being the victims. We know this because the perpetrators of such violence are adept at exploiting loopholes in the safeguarding processes.

The deleterious effects of gender identity theory are not a problem for the future because they are happening already. Trans offenders are placed in prisons according to their self-identified gender, leading to sexual assaults on female prisoners. The NHS has denied that a rape took place on a female ward on the basis that no male patients were present when, in reality, a trans woman was on the ward in question. The NHS has had to concede that the rape occurred. Sporting competitions have become farcical because male-bodied athletes have been allowed to compete in female only competitions. Lesbians are targeted because their same-SEX attraction is ‘transphobic’. Children are put on puberty blockers and a pathway towards hormonal and surgical transition with lifelong consequences.

The common thread here is that the victims of this new orthodoxy are, overwhelmingly, biological females or, as they themselves rightly describe themselves, women. Once again, the rights of women are being suppressed in favour of the rights of men and the ultimate responsibility for this rests with policy makers and politicians who have chosen to prioritise the dogmatic claims of a numerically small but noisy lobby. This is being done out of fear. They are afraid of being the next target of the cancellation process, fearful of being on the wrong end of the bullying and intimidation reserved for the heretics like Rosie Duffield, Maya Forstater, Kathleen Stock, JK Rowling and many others. The Labour Party, above all, has to find its collective backbone and it can only do so if it begins to listen to real women.

Michael Le Vell: The Fallout

Posted by ukvillafan on September 12, 2013
Posted in: Child Abuse, Crime. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Leave a comment

Michael Le Vell: The Fallout

As was inevitable, the print and online media contain several stories reporting on the outcome of Le Vell’s trial. I have blogged already about the questions his acquittal raises in relation to the decision-making of the Crown Prosecution Service and this theme is reflected in the output from national media chains.

The Daily Mail online has several different stories, one reporting on Le Vell’s reaction to the verdict, one querying why the prosecution was ever pursued and a third suggesting that the answer to that question lies in a change of approach in the post-Savile world since Operation Yew Tree. It has others – one can hardly accuse the Daily Mail of missing an angle!

To be fair to the Daily Mail, its blanket approach is ‘mirrored’ by other online media sources, such as the Daily Mirror (two of its stories can be seen here and here). Naturally, the ‘serious’ press covered the story in depth as well, as can be seen by these articles in the Guardian and Independent. The latter also has a short article focussing on the Crown Prosecution Service, but in reality, all of these stories in some way raise questions about the prosecution process.

The combination of these articles merely serves to demonstrate the potential consequences of a failed prosecution in this area, as I mentioned yesterday. Once the furore of this has died down, as it inevitably will, serious questions still remain. What led the CPS to change its collective mind and recommend prosecution, having initially refused to do so? Did the CPS change its position as a result of threatened action by the complainants family, as one of the media articles I have referred seems to claim? Did the Savile affair alter the thinking within the CPS?

More importantly, perhaps, given the CPS is funded by us all, how will the general public find out the answers to the above questions? Where will the scrutiny come from? For their needs to be scrutiny, if only for one main reason; the children and young people of this country deserve a justice system that promotes the disclosure of legitimate cases of abuse, discourages false allegations and secures the maximum likelihood of convictions for perpetrators. The internal decision-making of the CPS is central to those issues. Poorly-judged prosecutions that end in acquittal, if this can be categorised that way, do no service to anyone.

If this is causes you concern, as it does me, why not write to your MP with a query. You can easily find the necessary details on the web pages for Parliament. Perhaps you could write to the Director of Public Prosecutions, the official with overall responsibility for the CPS. Indeed, there are relatively new interim guidelines in this area that the DPP has posted a video about. He actually asks for public consultation, although he does not say when that is to end.

Whatever you choose to do, do something, or else you will lose a prime opportunity to make a difference.

Michael Le Vell

Posted by ukvillafan on September 12, 2013
Posted in: Child Abuse, Crime. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , . 2 Comments

Michael Turner, otherwise known as Michael Le Vell and famous for having played Kevin Webster in Coronation Street for decades, was acquitted this week of a series of sexual offences against a child, including rape.

In the current climate the case against Le Vell could not be categorised as ‘historical’, as the complainant is only 17 now and her allegations covered the period when she was aged 6 to 14. This is in contrast to the plethora of enquiries, charges and prosecutions variously relating to such celebrities as Stuart Hall, Dave Lee Travis, Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris, to name but four (not all of which have children as the complainants, of course, although all have a sexual element). Hall’s offences for example, which he eventually admitted, took place between 1967 and 1985. As such, there isn’t the issue, commonly argued in relation to the ‘historical’ cases, of the lapse of time leading to blurred or otherwise faulty recollections. (In saying this, of course, I start from the premise that the memory of abuse, sexual or otherwise, is often both painful and very clear to the victims.)

This raises a number of crucial points, not least of which is the competence or otherwise of the original decision to prosecute by the Crown Prosecution Service. The defence barrister is reported as claiming that the victim’s allegations against Le Vell were “inconsistent”, “unbelievable” and had an “agonising lack of detail”. Of course, it is the barrister’s job to defend such allegations vigorously, but if those descriptions are even close to being accurate, several concerns arise.

I keep an open mind as to the decision-making within the CPS, which carries an enormous responsibility, but it is in no one’s interests for the CPS to bring weak prosecutions, if that is what has happened here, in cases of the alleged sexual abuse and exploitation of children.

Child sexual abuse has long been something the majority of the public would prefer to ignore. It is known to go on in households up and down the country and in all classes, income brackets or whichever other way of classifying families one cares to utilise, but it is such an unthinkable crime to many that it often produces a ‘bury the head in the sand’ response, in the hope that it might just go away.

Now, it may be that the alleged victim in Le Vell’s case just wasn’t a good witness, or she was lying, or she had other difficulties; I wasn’t there so I cannot pass an opinion on any of the evidence. However, an acquittal on such serious charges means that the complainant was not believed to the required level – the case could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. For all relevant legal purposes Le Vell did not commit any of the alleged crimes.

Failed prosecutions can have two principle concerning consequences. They discourage other victims from coming forward and they reinforce the idea that children lie about such allegations. As a society we have to be satisfied that the CPS makes appropriate and accurate prosecution decisions in such cases. The public is unlikely to discover the specific details of the decision-making in this or, indeed, any other specific case, but it is crucial that there is a full and effective mechanism for these decisions to be reviewed independently if possible.

Should ‘Life’ Mean ‘Life’?

Posted by ukvillafan on July 17, 2013
Posted in: Crime, European Court of Human Rights, Legal Issues, Politics. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Leave a comment

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is the centre of attention again at the moment, and no doubt will have increased the fervour with which it is attacked by the political Right in the UK by its decision last week in the case of Jeremy Bamber and others. Bamber was convicted of murdering 5 members of his family in 1985. He was sentenced to life with no prospect of ever being released. He has always maintained his innocence claiming his schizophrenic sister shot and killed the other family members before turning the gun on herself. His recent case challenged the lawfulness of his ‘whole life’ sentence.

Individuals convicted of murder are sentenced to life imprisonment. This is mandatory, and arises from the compromise reached when Parliament abolished the death penalty in the 1960s. Life sentences can also be handed down for some other crimes at the discretion of the trial judge. The list of crimes for which a life sentence is available is limited and is determined by politicians through legislation and guidance.

Contrary to what is often reported in the British tabloid press, a life sentence lasts for the life of the criminal upon whom it is imposed (whether that is for murder or for other serious offences). However, that does not mean that everyone who is sentenced to life imprisonment will never be released. The concept of justice includes within it the possibility that people can change, and that applies as much to those convicted of serious crimes as it does to less dangerous individuals

In order to incorporate the above philosophical truism into sentencing practice, as well as to facilitate differentiation between the severity of the crimes committed by such individuals, each life sentence has attached to it a ‘minimum term’ or ‘tariff’, a period of time that has to be served behind bars before any consideration can be given to release. Historically, the Home Secretary had the power to determine the length of such a term, but this power was removed following previous court cases that eventually went to the ECHR. Broadly, the rationale behind these decisions was that imposing sentence is a judicial task and should not be left in the hands of politicians, who may have other motivations, such as public popularity, when considering the imposition of a tariff.

At this point it must be emphasised that for a prisoner sentenced to life the only significant effect of a ‘minimum term’ is to identify the earliest possible date for an ‘early release’. Whilst there is a set of guidelines that the Parole Board will follow in considering such applications that might, indeed, lead to the prisoner concerned re-joining the community outside the prison walls, it remains a discretionary process; release is not automatic. Furthermore, the life sentence remains in place; it is not commuted to community service! This means that once released a ‘lifer’ is always under the threat of being returned to prison in order to serve out the rest of the original sentence. ‘Life’ does indeed mean ‘life’.

Indeed, in some cases it has been considered appropriate for individuals to never be released, that they should die behind bars. The ability to impose a ‘whole life’ minimum term now rests with the trial judge, who must consider, but not necessarily strictly adhere to, guidelines set down by parliament. They can only be ‘guidelines’, in respect of which the judge is entitled to exercise discretion, because it is now accepted jurisprudence that sentencing individuals cannot be allowed to again become the province of the political opportunist. Whole life orders, as they are known, are reserved, generally but not exclusively, for multiple murderers and those who exhibited a degree of pre-planning in relation to the crimes committed. The result of such an order being made is permanent incarceration.

The decision of the Grand Chamber of the ECHR issued last week relates to the lawfulness of ‘whole life orders’. The legal problem is that apart from very limited circumstances, such orders do not allow for any review whatsoever of the original sentence. They do not allow the contemplation of that optimistic philosophical position that anyone can change and become a better, safer person who might be a more productive contributor to society if released as opposed to kept in prison.

As such, whole life orders have been challenged as being incompatible with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which contains an unqualified ban on inhuman and degrading treatment. Inhuman, the argument goes, precisely because they are indeterminate, irreducible and do not allow for that very human capacity for change. It has been stated previously by the ECHR, and accepted by the UK government in this current case, that a criminal sentence has to carry with it the possibility of it being reviewed and reduced in order for it to be compliant with Article 3 of the convention.

The government’s position before the ECHR was that the residual but limited power retained by the Home Secretary to release any prisoner, including a ‘lifer’, in certain circumstances was sufficient to counter the irreducibility argument. Unfortunately, this power is so limited by a policy document issued by the government that it only allows for the release of prisoners subject to a whole life order if very specific criteria are met. A quote from the ECHR illustrates the problem. (In what follows, section 30 is that section in the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 that allows the Home Secretary to grant early release and the Prison Service Order contains the guidelines as to how that power will be exercised.)

“126. However, the Court must be concerned with the law as it presently stands on the published policies as well as in judicial dicta and as it is applied in practice to whole life prisoners. The fact remains that, despite the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Bieber, the Secretary of State has not altered the terms of his explicitly stated and restrictive policy on when he will exercise his section 30 power. Notwithstanding the reading given to section 30 by the Court of Appeal, the Prison Service Order remains in force and provides that release will only be ordered in certain exhaustively listed, and not merely illustrative, circumstances, namely if a prisoner is terminally ill or physically incapacitated and other additional criteria can be met (namely that the risk of re-offending is minimal, further imprisonment would reduce the prisoner’s life expectancy, there are adequate arrangements for the prisoner’s care and treatment outside prison, and early release will bring some significant benefit to the prisoner or his or her family).

127.  These are highly restrictive conditions. Even assuming that they could be met by a prisoner serving a whole life order, the Court considers that the Chamber was correct to doubt whether compassionate release for the terminally ill or physically incapacitated could really be considered release at all, if all it meant was that a prisoner died at home or in a hospice rather behind prison walls. Indeed, in the Court’s view, compassionate release of this kind was not what was meant by a “prospect of release” in Kafkaris, cited above. As such, the terms of the Order in themselves would be inconsistent with Kafkaris and would not therefore be sufficient for the purposes of Article 3.

Essentially, because the circumstances when a prisoner under a whole life order can be released using these provisions are limited, extremely restrictive and do not allow for any reasonable level of discretion, the ECHR does not consider that this amounts to ‘early release’ at all. Following such analysis, it was inevitable that the ECHR would find against the UK in this case.

I made a prediction that what would follow this decision was likely to include a significant amount of uneducated ranting by politicians and tabloid editors all foaming at the mouth and fighting with each other in order to be seen as the most ‘hard line’, including comments about Europe interfering with ‘our’ judicial system and placing the public at risk as a result of the prospect of the early release of dangerous felons! After the Abu Qatada case we have heard the likes of David Cameron, Theresa May and Chris Grayling pontificating and, in the process, denigrating the role of the ECHR. Most, if not all of the commentary you will have read over recent days was nothing more than right-wing, scaremongering propaganda. You should ignore it and consider the following.

Whilst the crimes committed are heinous, repugnant and have a long-lasting effect on victims and their families and friends, it is inhumane to consign someone to permanent incarceration without the prospect of at some point in the future being considered such a changed person that they could be considered for release. This had already been determined as a breach of Article 3 and was a position accepted and endorsed by the government in this case.

In finding against the UK, the ECHR has done no more than say it is wrong to have a policy that prevents any sentence being reviewed and possibly reduced. It most certainly is not saying anything about ‘lifers’ generally or the specific applicants in this case. It is, always has been and will remain entirely lawful to impose a ‘whole life’ tariff and for any person so sentenced to never see the light of day again. This decision will not, despite what may have been written in its aftermath, lead to a flurry of releases into the community of our most dangerous prisoners. The only effect is that all prisoners, even those the courts initially consider as suitable for whole life orders, will have the right to that sentence being reviewed.

Previously, when the Home Secretary was the person responsible for setting minimum terms of imprisonment following the passing of a life sentence by the court, there was an automatic review after 25 years in relation to those cases where a whole life tariff had been imposed. That provision was not included in the legislation that was passed in 2003 to transfer the whole sentencing process away from politicians to judges and it seems to me that the appropriate response to the ECHR decision is to restore that reviewing process.

‘Life’ does mean ‘life’. It always has. It always will. All that a justice system is required to do is to provide for a fair appraisal of the capacity of a person, any person, to change. It is about preserving what is best about being human, the ability to reflect and, in appropriate circumstances be compassionate. Sometimes, politicians and others with personally motivated agendas need reminding of this, which is why, in the current political climate, the European Court of Human Rights is needed now as much as when it was first constituted.

Maria Stubbings: Was Her Death Preventable?

Posted by ukvillafan on May 21, 2013
Posted in: Crime, Domestic Abuse, Feminism, Politics. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . 1 Comment

Maria Stubbings was murdered in December 2008 by Marc Chivers, an ex-boyfriend. The Independent Police Complaints Commission has had two attempts at investigating the conduct of the police in relation to this crime. Its second report was published today, 4½ years after the murder, 3½ years after Chivers was sentenced and nearly 2 years after it decided its first report wasn’t good enough. This piece reflects on some of the issues raised by this case.

Today, the BBC is reporting that the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has published the results of its second investigation into the murder of Maria Stubbings; the first IPCC report was ‘shelved’ in 2011 due to ‘inaccuracies’.

The family of the murder victim is calling for a public enquiry into how cases of domestic abuse are investigated. Even a cursory analysis of the case will tell you why they are right to do so. In addition to those specific conclusions drawn by this more recent of the reports that relate to the failings of the Essex Police Force and individual officers, which this article does not concentrate on, the whole sorry tale brings to the fore many other matters of general and serious concern of which the following are but a small sample.

Time Frame

Maria Stubbings was murdered by Marc Chivers in December 2008. He pleaded guilty at his trial and was sentenced to life imprisonment in December 2009. The initial IPCC investigation commenced around the time Chivers was convicted and the first IPCC report was published at the beginning of December 2010. By June 2011 it became clear to the IPCC that the initial investigation had been inadequate. It was at this point that the IPCC embarked upon an ‘internal review’ in relation to the investigation. The second report was commissioned shortly thereafter, with revised terms of reference. That report is dated January 2013 and was published today, May 21st 2013. A number of questions arise immediately.

Why did it take 12 months for the IPCC to produce its first report?

The IPCC is, effectively, the means by which serious complaints over police behaviour and decisions are investigated. In essence, having replaced the Police Complaints Authority, it deals with police misconduct. Its remit is to investigate and report on the most serious potential failures within the police and, as such, has a responsibility to do so thoroughly, but also promptly and efficiently. Even in the most complex of cases, 12 months is an unconscionably long time for victims to await the pronouncements of the IPCC.

Why did it then take 6 months for the IPCC to identify problems with the initial enquiry and then a further 19 months for it to produce its second report?

If 12 months is too long for victims and the general public to wait for an IPCC report then 19 months is inexcusable. The victim’s family, which in this case include Maria Stubbings’s then 15 year-old son (who was alone in the same house as the murderer and, unbeknown to him, his mother’s body, for several days) has had to wait 4½ years from her murder for the IPCC to report.

It must also be noted that several police officers who were the subjects of the investigation have also had to wait this length of time before knowing whether they are to face any form of disciplinary procedure.

Why, when the recent report is dated 30th January 2013, is it only being made public now, nearly 4 months later?

Everyone will acknowledge that the family of the victim and those at risk of disciplinary action as a result of this investigation are entitled, for very different reasons, to be made aware of its conclusions before the general public. It is even understandable that those individuals might be granted some time to reflect and respond. Can those reasons be sufficient for yet further delay? Can there be any other excuse?

Where is the clamour for an improvement in this dreadful performance?

A Complicit Government?

Chivers was already a murderer before he killed Maria Stubbings. He lived in Germany, the son of a soldier, and served 15 years for strangling his then girlfriend and burying her in a shallow grave. He had been sentenced to life and was deported back to the UK on his release.

In England and Wales, a life sentence is just that, whatever the tabloids might have you believe. A minimum term of imprisonment is set at the same time, but this only fixes the earliest date that consideration can be given to parole. There is no automatic release at the end of any such initial period.

Even if parole is granted, all that means is that the offender is allowed to leave prison ‘on licence’. Any further offending behaviour is almost certain to lead to a recall to prison to serve the remainder of the original life sentence or another significant period of time at least.

This is relevant to Chivers because before murdering Maria Stubbings he was convicted of an assault on her. He was released on conviction due to the amount of time he had served in prison whilst awaiting trial. Had his first murder occurred in this country and had he, therefore, been sentenced here, that assault charge would have led to him being recalled to prison and he would not have been free to commit murder again 6 months later. Unfortunately, having committed his first murder abroad the mechanism described above – ‘life licences’ – was not in place.

This is what the new IPCC report has to say about life licences.

“This apparent legal anomaly led the IPCC to conclude that life licences should apply to offenders who return to the UK having served life sentences, regardless of the country in which the offence was committed or the life sentence served. This was raised with the Home Office in October 2010, and in December 2010, a formal recommendation was made that changes in legislation should be considered so that offenders, who return to the UK having served a life sentence in another country, would be made the subject of a life licence. This would enable appropriate restrictions and measures to be considered and implemented to minimise the risk of harm to others. The IPCC has sought regular progress updates from the Home Office since that time and have been advised that, ‘The Home Office and Ministry of Justice recognise that this is a complex area and are continuing to discuss the issue.”

The Mail Online reported on this aspect of the case as long ago as the initial trial in December 2009.

“Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said last night: ‘It seems extraordinary that European co-operation cannot be achieved on monitoring offenders who are deported after serving a prison sentence.

‘This loophole needs to be closed.’

The Ministry of Justice said the EU had adopted a system under which criminals could continue to be monitored when they were released and deported, but it was not yet being enforced in the UK.”

Delay would appear to be endemic in this area. What is there to be ‘discussed’ about this issue that takes 4½ years, with no sign of a conclusion?

It is commonly stated that every week in this country 2 women are killed, yes killed, not assaulted, by men they are or have been in a relationship with. Women’s Aid’s website is just one place to find such a statistic. This is not a minor problem yet it is met with responses from the police and politicians that are dilatory in the extreme. This is not good enough.

Educate yourself on this topic by visiting the IPCC website where you can find further details of this specific case. Write to your MP. Ask her or him why no action has been taken with regard to offenders from abroad who, if here, would be on a life licence. Ask why the IPCC is allowed, without apparent censure, to take so long to report. Ask anything you like, but ask! While you’re doing this, join in with the demand for a public enquiry into the handling of domestic abuse!