In R (on the application of Charnwood Borough Council) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 33 (Admin), the High Court considered whether the Minister of State for Crime, Policing and Fire could lawfully direct a local authority to establish a Domestic Homicide Review (DHR) under section 9 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004.
Background
The case arose following the death of CB, who died at home in June 2021. Her partner, M, reported that CB had been drinking heavily and suffered multiple falls down the stairs before he assisted her to bed. Paramedics arrived to find CB deceased, estimating she had been dead for approximately two hours. A pathology report attributed her death to internal haemorrhage due to abdominal injuries, which were consistent with M’s account. Subsequent police investigations found no evidence of third-party involvement, and the coroner ruled the death accidental.
Despite these findings, the Minister of State, under delegated powers from the Secretary of State for the Home Department, directed Charnwood Borough Council to initiate a DHR under section 9 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. The council challenged this decision, arguing that the statutory conditions for a DHR were not met.
Legal Issue – Interpretation of Section 9
The key legal issue in the case was the interpretation of section 9 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, which provides that a DHR must be conducted when a person aged 16 or over dies as a result of violence, abuse, or neglect by a person they were in a relationship with. The provision allows the Secretary of State to issue guidance on when a DHR should take place, and also to direct a local authority to conduct one.
Charnwood Borough Council argued that section 9 required a clear finding that the death resulted from violence, abuse, or neglect. They contended that in CB’s case, both the police and coroner had determined that her death was accidental and that there was no evidence of neglect by M.
The Secretary of State, however, argued that section 9 should be interpreted more broadly, allowing for a DHR whenever there is a reasonable suspicion that neglect may have played a role in a death, even if there is no definitive evidence. The minister contended that DHRs serve a preventative function, aimed at learning lessons rather than determining legal liability, and that the threshold for directing a review should therefore be lower than for a criminal or coroner’s finding.
Judgment
Mrs Justice Stacey ruled in favour of the Secretary of State, holding that section 9 grants the minister a broad discretion in deciding when a DHR is necessary. She found that:
- The statutory language does not require definitive proof of neglect before a review can be ordered.
- The minister’s decision must be based on a reasonable suspicion that the circumstances of the death fall within the scope of section 9.
- In CB’s case, it was reasonable for the minister to suspect that neglect by M could have been a contributing factor, even in the absence of a formal finding of neglect by the police or coroner.
Outcome and Significance
The ruling confirms that section 9 should be interpreted flexibly, allowing the Secretary of State to direct a DHR even in cases where evidence of violence, abuse, or neglect is inconclusive. The decision reinforces the preventative purpose of DHRs, ensuring that local authorities undertake reviews in cases of suspected domestic abuse-related deaths, even where there is no criminal prosecution or coroner’s verdict of neglect.
This judgment is significant for local authorities, as it clarifies their obligations under section 9 and affirms the wide discretion of the Secretary of State in requiring DHRs. It may also result in an increase in the number of DHRs being directed in cases where the role of neglect is uncertain but suspected.
Read the full judgment here.
Ben Keith is a leading barrister specialising in cross-border and international cases. He deals with all aspects of Extradition, Human Rights, Mutual Legal Assistance, Interpol, Financial crime and International Law including sanctions. He represents governments, political and military leaders, High Net Worth individuals, human rights defenders and business leaders in the most sensitive cases.
