Clare's law

[1potato]

Does anyone know how the police approach a current partner if they suspect they may be at risk and there is something to disclose? If the request for information came from a third party, are they likely to ask the current partner if they would like to run a police check?

Clare's Law is usually requested by the individual or in some cases children's services, IDVAS, etc

However even though professionals can share information between them you cannot share with the individual unless they have asked for it

Police don't approach the person at risk due to that risk increasing

Yes..in the instance in discussing it was a 3rd party who requested information. The police then phoned the current partner and asked them if they would like to run a police check. They refused. I can't work out if this was a clumsily handled attempt at disclosure or something else.

The individual is already on the marac list if that helps at all.

A third party requested claires law with my ex partner.

I recieved an email asking to confirm a date and time where I felt safe to talk. I didn't realise it was about Claires Law as the email was just signed by a police officer

They rang around that time and discussed my ex partners past convictions.

They didn't ask if I wanted to know or not, but said the request had been made and that I should listen to the information they had.

At the start of the call they had me confirm that my partner at the time wasn't around and that no children were in the room due to how I may react. They also stated at the end of the call not to reveal that I had been given the information to my ex and offered support in leaving the relationship.

They were very insistent on making sure I was alone and safe during the whole process, hence emailing first and not calling, just incase I was with my ex when the call came through.

the police can decide to disclose to a current partner. Often the decision can be made at a Marac to make a Claire’s law disclosure

The police will contact and disclose information to people who they think need to have the information to be kept safe.

Why did the person refuse the check?

The guidance of Claire’s law is here-

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1149137/DVDS_Updated_Guidance_-_post_section_77_commencement.pdf

if you’re interested to see the guidance they follow. Two routes followed one whereby people can be given information if they request it and one when police can proactively approach people even if they haven’t requested it

Thank you for sharing that roamingt. That sounds like a horrible thing to go through.

I don't fully know. I've spoken to them about the call and they think there is absolutely no need for a check as the partner 'wouldn't hurt a fly'.

I just don't understand why on earth they asked her if she'd like to run a check. Contacting the current partner clearly puts them at risk and it seems none of the safeguarding measure explained by roamingt were followed. And surely the initial request would trigger the check in the first place?

Thank you. This is very comprehensive.

When you mentioned Marac is that in relation to the friend or her new partner?

either way I would highly encourage her to make an application. Or do one on her behalf. If he truly wound “hurt a fly” then they’ll be no harm done. He will never know an application was made.

It is my friend who is already on the marac list (apologies I don't know the correct terminology) due to her past partner.

She now has a new partner and in a picture it looked like she had two black eyes, hence the application to Clare's law.

We heard nothing for a month and then my friend said she'd had the call from the police saying someone had cause for concern and would she like to run a check. She refused.

He already knows about the call. Apparently they were both really anxious about who could have made it as everyone knows how gentle he is.

My friend now knows it was us who contacted the police. She says no cause for concern.

The other thing the police said to her is that they couldn't run the check as they didn't have his surname (they definitely did)

So, you can see why I'm confused and wondering if this was a fudged and unsafe attempt at a disclosure or if it is just a case of piss poor policing.

Sounds like piss poor policing to me. Even someone with no experience would know to speak to the person away from their partner. I’d be tempted to make contact with them and complain or ask for the referral to be reviewed. From what I’ve seen a third party referral should be enough for them to consider if a disclosure should be made.

I made a referral for my cousin. The police approach her with the outcome- which was that he did have a history of abuse and was currently in court for sex offences. They didn’t ask her permission to do a check and there is no mention of that in the guidance.

Thing is it is pointless listening to anything the partner has to say. Abusers always deny deny deny and many are very good at appearing kind and charming on the surface. Also it’s not great relying on women to request them for themselves because often it is other people who will recognise the risk.

Thank you for your thoughts and sharing about your cousin. How horrific. That was brave of you.

I'm reading the guidance through now and it says that a disclosure can't be made if the subject's identity can't be verified. We were unable to give DOB. I'm now wondering if they did find something and wanted my friend to verify before sharing the information.

Saying they didn't have his surname (they did) rather than his DOB, which seems weirdly sloppy, kind of strengthens my thinking in this direction.

I had a bad experience with this. MASH/a DV organisation or Social Care asked for a Clare's Law to be done on my then partner/father of my child. I didn't know this. It took months from when I first made a professional aware that I was scared of my partner and that there were issues.

By the time the police tried to contact me to disclose, we weren't even living in the same county as the police force. They rang my phone without prior arrangement and then started talking about the disclosure without checking if I was alone. I was not alone. It put me in great danger. It took me 4 more years to be able to get out partly because this was one of a catalogue of errors when I tried to approach the correct agencies for help to escape and they kept alerting my abuser to the fact I was trying to leave.

Sounds like poor policing to me.

Anyone can ask for Clare's law to be given to a current partner - the person themselves, an agency or a concerned third party.

MARAC meets monthly to discuss those currently considered most at risk from DV. There isn't a list that you stay on. If the relationship breaks down and you are no longer considered at great risk, you slip off the monthly agenda.

Once Clare's law is requested, the police force consider if there is anything disclosable. If it is requested by a third party they will ask the victim if they want it. If that person says no, their hands are tied. If they say yes, or if it has been requested by the person themselves, the police then type all the disclosable facts into a document which is read out to the recipient. You are not given a copy and have to agree not to disclose to anyone else what you have been told.

You can be offered Clare's Law several times if different requests are made.

I say that I think this is a case of poor policing because someone I know had a very poorly delivered offer of CL. The police phoned her to ask her if she wanted it. She said yes. They went off to prepare the document and said they'd be back in touch. When they did that, they phoned her out of the blue. She was in the car. With him. They didn't check if she was alone. They just started reading it out. He could hear the whole thing. So she stopped them, said all was well and she didn't wish them to continue. Needless to say, the relationship went very badly, he has been charged with coercive control and battery and is due to stand trial. Had the CL delivery been done properly, things may have been very different.

The other massive gaping hole in the system is that DV is not centrally recorded, only locally. So a police force will only disclose in a Clare's Law application the incidents it has recorded. They don't include incidents in other police force regions (even neighbouring ones).
This is very concerning indeed and needs to be addressed but of course it isn't. Because as much as they all like to claim DV is a priority, it just isn't. You only have to look at the statistics to know that.

In the case I've mentioned, it was drawn to the police's attention that there was some concern it had been badly delivered. And a second person requested it be offered again.
So the police had another go. By attending her house. Unannounced. When he was present.
You couldn't make it up.

Still worth trying though.

God that’s insane!! I assumed they’d be able to check cross forces as they can with other offences, talk about letting women (mainly) down yet again! Bet abusers know and use this to keep victims from knowing their history! 😡

Yes, so the penultimate victim of this man (in respect of whom he has been charged) -let's call her A - lives in a different police force area to his last victim, B.
B 's Clare's law report did not include anything about his abuse of A, even though he's charged and due to stand trial, because it's a different force and nothing about A's case appears on their systems.
It beggars belief.

And with modern technology it would take so little for the information to be available nationally! Bloody piece meal policing along with everything else it seems!

Presumably they could check across forces if they thought if it, but they don't routinely do that.

Although perhaps not - police data systems have certain crimes/info recorded centrally (national database) and others just locally by the relevant force. Info about DV is recorded and held on the local database. I don't know how/whether one force can search/request a search of the local databases of other forces (and in the case of DV access to these is quite strictly controlled).

That's my understanding anyway. But what I say about A and B and the info given to B I know to be true.