Domestic and Family Violence Death Review Documents
National
Australian Domestic and Family Violence Death Review Network (2018), Australian Domestic and Family Violence Death Review Network Data Report: 2018, New South Wales Domestic Violence Death Review Team, Sydney.
Abstract: The Australian Domestic and Family Violence Death Review Network (‘the Network’) was established in 2011 and represents a unique collaboration between domestic and family violence death review mechanisms across Australia. Network members have specialist expertise in domestic and family violence related issues and access to extensive information pertaining to domestic and family violence deaths. This is critical to providing a more informed, holistic understanding of the circumstances and context of a domestic and family violence related death.
In recent years, the Network has undertaken extensive work to develop a National Minimum Dataset of domestic and family violence related deaths and this report presents key findings from this specialised dataset.
This report demonstrates the breadth of information and data that is held by the Network, and its unique ability to collect and report on data in relation to domestic and family violence related deaths.
Australian Domestic and Family Violence Death Review Network, & Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety. (2022), Australian Domestic and Family Violence Death Review Network Data Report: Intimate partner violence homicides 2010–2018 (2nd ed.; Research report 03/2022). ANROWS.
The data presented in this report provides a national picture of characteristics present in intimate partner violence homicides (“IPV”) in Australia between 1 July 2010 and 30 June 2018, examining the 311 reported IPV homicides across Australia.
Key findings include:
•
IPV homicide is highly gendered: in the majority of cases, domestic violence is used by the man against his female partner. Less than one quarter of all cases involved a female IPV homicide offender killing a current or former male partner, and more than three quarters of all cases involved a male IPV homicide offender killing a current or former female partner (n=240, 77.2%).
•
IPV homicide occurs across a broad age range (18–82) with the majority of offenders and victims born in Australia.
•
IPV homicide can occur at any stage during a relationship with homicides occurring during or after short relationships, as well as after many years of protracted violence by abusers.
•
There is a heightened vulnerability for women who separate or intend to separate from their partners prior to the homicide, with actual or intended separation being a feature in over half of the male-perpetrated IPV homicides. Actual (n=77, 34.4%) or intended separation (n=53, 36.1%) was a feature in more than half of cases where a male IPV offender killed a female partner (n=130, 58.0%).
•
The diverse range of abusive tactics identified in this dataset, including physical, emotional, social, financial and sexual violence and stalking, suggests that any relationship that exhibits domestic violence, whether physical or non-physical, is embedded with a risk of lethality.
•
Only approximately one third of all IPV homicide offenders and victims were engaged in paid employment at the time of the homicide (n=225 of 622, 36.2%).
•
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are overrepresented as both IPV victims and offenders, with a complex range of interrelated factors associated with the disproportionate incidence and severity of family violence in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.
The report identifies particular domestic violence abusive behaviours observed in the focused dataset:
•
In the focused dataset (n=292), the vast majority of the 224 male IPV homicide offenders who killed a female victim were identified as the primary domestic violence abuser in the relationship (n=212, 94.6%). Of the 62 cases where a female IPV homicide offender killed a male partner, only a small proportion of women were identified as the primary abuser against the male partner they killed (n=5, 8.1%). In half of the six cases where a male IPV homicide offender killed a male partner, the homicide offender was identified as the primary abuser in the relationship (n=3, 50%).
•
Of the 212 cases in which a male primary domestic violence abuser killed a female victim, the majority used emotional and psychological abuse (n=173, 81.6%) and physical abuse (n=169, 79.7%) against the female partner they killed. Over half had been socially abusive (n=134, 63.2%), just over a quarter were financially abusive (n=58, 27.4%) and far fewer were known to be sexually abusive (n=34, 16.0%).
•
Stalking occurred in two fifths of the 212 cases in which a male primary domestic violence abuser killed a female victim (n=88, 41.5%). In 71 cases, the domestic violence abuser stalked the victim during the relationship (33.5%) and in 44 cases the abuser stalked the victim after the relationship ended (20.8%).
It concludes:
This research demonstrates the highly gendered nature of intimate partner violence and IPV homicides, with the male party being identified as the primary domestic violence abuser in the majority of cases where a male homicide offender killed a female victim and where a female homicide offender killed a male partner. In many cases, there had been a domestic violence order naming one or both parties as in need of protection from the other at the time of, or prior to, the homicide. The vast majority of these named the female party as needing protection from her male partner. This demonstrates that in many cases the domestic violence had been reported and there had been some level of police or court intervention prior to the homicide.
With separation being a prominent feature in over half of the male-perpetrated IPV homicides against women and almost half of the female-perpetrated IPV homicides, this research also demonstrates that the period leading up to and immediately following separation involves a heightened level of risk.
Analysis of the domestic violence behaviours used by the primary domestic violence abuser demonstrates the range of physical and non-physical violence used by abusive men to dominate and control their partner. The high prevalence of emotional and psychological abuse (such as verbally denigrating, threatening, blaming or gaslighting the victim) and social abuse (such as isolating the victim from support networks and controlling her movements) demonstrates the need for services and first responders to recognise, beyond the use of physical violence, the pattern of abusive and controlling behaviours that presents in a domestic violence relationship. Further, the diverse range of abusive tactics present in this dataset, including physical, emotional, social, financial and sexual violence, and stalking, suggests that any relationship that exhibits domestic violence, whether physical or non-physical, is embedded with a risk of lethality.
Australian Domestic and Family Violence Death Review Network, & Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety. (2022) Domestic and family violence lethality: Updated facts about intimate partner homicide (Fact sheet).
This fact sheet highlights important findings of the Australian Domestic and Family Violence Death Review Network Data Report: Intimate partner violence homicides 2010–2018.
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, (commenced 2022) Missing and murdered First Nations women and children. Parliament of Australia (Webpage).
This inquiry is tasked to examine issues associated with missing and murdered First N ations women and children, with particular reference to:
•
the number of First Nations women and children who are missing and murdered;
•
the current and historical practices, including resources, to investigating the deaths and missing person reports of First Nations women and children in each jurisdiction compared to non-First Nations women and children;
•
the institutional legislation, policies and practices implemented in response to all forms of violence experienced by First Nations women and children;
•
the systemic causes of all forms of violence, including sexual violence, against First Nations women and children, including underlying social, economic, cultural, institutional and historical causes contributing to the ongoing violence and particular vulnerabilities of First Nations women and children;
•
the policies, practices and support services that have been effective in reducing violence and increasing safety of First Nations women and children, including self-determined strategies and initiatives;
•
the identification of concrete and effective actions that can be taken to remove systemic causes of violence and to increase the safety of First Nations women and children;
•
the ways in which missing and murdered First Nations women and children and their families can be honoured and commemorated; and
•
any other related matters.
The website includes submissions, details of hearings and other documents including statistics requested by the Committee.
ACT
ACT data for the Australian Domestic and Family Violence Death Review Network is provided by the National Coronial Information System with the approval of the ACT Coroner’s Court.
Australian Government (2021). National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children: Family Violence Death Review: Responsible government: Australian Capital Territory (website).
The ACT Family Violence Death Review was established through legislation in 2021.
“The intended outcome of an ACT Family Violence Death Review is to make system-wide improvements across policy, systems and services, data collection and legislation to prevent future deaths related to domestic and family violence. Risk factors identified as part of the Death Review will also inform concurrent work of the ACT Government to deliver a domestic and family violence risk assessment and management framework (see Domestic and Family Violence Risk Assessment and Management Framework).”
NSW
Coroner’s Court New South Wales, Domestic violence death review (Government of New South Wales).
The Domestic Violence Death Review Team (DVDRT) was established in 2010 pursuant to the Coroners Act 2009 NSW to review deaths occurring in the context of domestic violence in New South Wales. This page details the role, function and membership of the DVDRT and provides links to the annual reports of the DVDRT to Parliament. It also provides a link to reports of the national Domestic and Family Violence Death Review Network.
NSW Domestic Violence Death Review Team (2021). Report: 2019-2021. New South Wales Government, Sydney.
Key findings:
All Intimate Partner Homicides
•
The vast majority (86.3%) of intimate partner homicides in NSW occur following an identifiable history of domestic violence.
Intimate Partner Violence Homicides
Gender
•
Nearly 80% of all intimate partner violence (IPV) homicide victims were women.
•
The vast majority of men who killed their female intimate partner were the predominant domestic violence abuser in the relationship (98.5%).
•
The vast majority of women who killed their male intimate partner were the predominant domestic violence victim in the relationship (91.3%).
•
There were no cases where a woman was identified as the predominant domestic violence abuser in the relationship.
Male predominant abuser behaviours and histories of violence:
•
Emotional/psychological violence was evident in almost all cases (96.7%).
•
In more than a quarter of cases there was no identifiable history of physical violence prior to the fatal assault (27.3%).
•
Almost 60% of male abusers were known to have perpetrated violence against at least one prior partner, as well as the victim (58.1%).
•
In 22.9% of cases there was a current enforceable ADVO at the time of the homicide.
•
In 46.9% of cases there was no police contact prior to the homicide.
Homicide offender and victim characteristics:
•
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples continue to be significantly overrepresented in intimate partner homicides:
◦
15.5% of female and 34.8% of male IPV homicide victims.
◦
28.3% of female and 11.2% of male IPV homicide offenders.
•
Intimate partner homicide victims were most commonly living in areas with the lowest socio-economic status.
•
One third of male homicide offenders engaged in alcohol (39.8%) or drug use (33%).
•
More than half of male homicide offenders had a confirmed or suspected background of mental health issues (up to 51.9%).
•
Over 40% of male homicide offenders had experienced significant trauma and/or adversity in their childhood (41.7%).
Relationship characteristics
•
Separation was a factor in two-thirds of IPV homicides involving a male offender killing a female intimate partner (66.5%).
•
From the 252 IPV homicides in the dataset there were at least 267 child survivors
NT
Northern Territory information for the Australian Domestic and Family Violence Death Review Network is provided by the Coroner’s Office of the Northern Territory.
QLD
Queensland Coroners Court, Review of deaths from domestic and family violence (Queensland Government).
The Domestic and Family Violence Death Review and Advisory Board (“the Board”) was established pursuant to the Coroners Act 2003 (Qld) in response to a key recommendation of the he Special Taskforce on Domestic and Family Violence Final Report, Not Now, Not Ever: Ending domestic and family violence in Queensland (Queensland Government).
This page details the role, function and membership of the Board and provides links to the Systemic and Annual Reports of the Board to Parliament, as well as a statistical overview of Queensland domestic and family violence data, research reports and submissions.
Domestic and Family Violence Death Review and Advisory Board (2022) Collaborative responses to risk, safety, and dangerousness: Annual Report 2021-22, Queensland Government.
The 2021-22 Queensland report highlights 6 key lethality risk indicators in intimate partner homicides between 2011 and 2018 (where recorded) as follows:
•
In 53.2% the victim had an intuitive sense of fear of the perpetrator;
•
In 26.1% the victim had experienced non-lethal strangulation by the perpetrator;
•
In 37% there had been an escalation in violence prior to the homicide;
•
In 35.95% the perpetrator had made threats to kill;
•
In 15.2% there was a history of sexual violence.
In particular, the Board recommends a focus on understanding escalation of domestic violence, particularly where victims present to agencies on multiple occasions. The Board observed that further protective action taken by victims, for example, seeking to vary a protection order can indicate a change in circumstances or that current conditions are ineffective, should be interpreted as reflecting an escalation of violence. Service providers should be aware that some actions by the victim can heighten risk of harm, including taking steps to secure the safety of children through mediation and legal processes.
TAS
Tasmanian data for the Australian Domestic and Family Violence Death Review Network is provided by the National Coronial Information System with the approval of the Tasmanian Coroner’s Court.
VIC
Coroners Court of Victoria (2020) Victorian Systemic Review of Family Violence Deaths: Review of Family Violence Related Homicides: 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2015, State of Victoria.
Extract: The Victorian Systemic Review of Family Violence Deaths (VSRFVD) at the Coroners Court of Victoria (CCOV) is led by the State Coroner and examines the context in which family violence-related deaths occur. Through coroners’ findings, comments and recommendations, the VSRFVD contributes to strengthening the response to family violence in Victoria.
To assist the work of the VSRFVD, and coroners, the CCOV captures data relating to homicides in Victoria using the Victorian Homicide Register (VHR). The VHR records every homicide reported to the CCOV and captures a range of information pertaining to the homicide victim and offender. In cases identified as family violence related homicides, further information regarding the dynamics of the relationship between the homicide victim and offender, any family violence history and risk factors are captured.
The VSRFVD ‘First Report’ was published in 2012 and used data relating to homicides from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2010 to explore the factors and circumstances in which family violence homicide deaths occur. This report builds on that initial dataset, presenting data in relation to family violence homicides which occurred between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2015.
Of the 257 homicide related deaths reported during this time period, where the coronial investigation was closed, 97 deaths were identified as family violence related deaths where coding into the VHR had been completed. Those deaths arose from 82 separate homicide incidents perpetrated by 86 homicide offenders. Data from these deaths was examined for the purposes of this report.
WA
Western Australian data for the Australian Domestic and Family Violence Death Review Network has been provided by the National Coronial Information System with the approval of the Western Australian Coroner’s Court.
Ombudsman Western Australia, Family and Domestic Violence Fatality Review (Western Australian Government).
This is the section of the Ombudsman’s 2019-20-21 Annual Report which relates to Family and Domestic Violence Fatality Review. It sets out the work of the Ombudsman in the area, including:
•
Background;
•
The role of the Ombudsman in relation to family and domestic violence fatality reviews;
•
The family and domestic violence fatality review process;
•
Analysis of family and domestic violence fatality reviews;
•
Patterns, trends and case studies relating to family and domestic violence fatality reviews;
•
Issues identified in family and domestic violence fatality reviews;
•
Recommendations;
•
Timely handling of notifications and reviews;
•
Major own motion investigations arising from family and domestic violence fatality reviews;
•
Other mechanisms to prevent or reduce family and domestic violence fatalities; and
•
Stakeholder liaison.
The 2020-21 Annual Report records the following issues identified from fatality review (it is important to note that issues are not identified in every family and domestic violence fatality review; and when an issue has been identified, it does not necessarily mean that the issue is related to the death):
•
Not working directly with remote Aboriginal community to facilitate local solutions to family violence that are co-designed, and led, by Aboriginal people to promote safety.
•
Missed opportunities to develop culturally informed safety planning and consult with Aboriginal experts.
•
Not undertaking sufficient action to confirm the cultural safety of a family and domestic violence model in use across the diverse population of Aboriginal people in Western Australia.
•
Missed opportunities to address family and domestic violence perpetrator accountability.
•
Missed opportunities to provide perpetrator rehabilitation support.
•
Missed opportunities to address family and domestic violence victim safety.
•
Missed opportunity to facilitate safe accommodation.
•
Missed opportunity to assess risk of harm and develop strategies to reduce or prevent family and domestic violence in the context of mental health issues and/or drug and alcohol use.
•
Not undertaking sufficient family and inter-agency communication to enable effective case management and collaborative responses.
•
Not adequately meeting policy and procedures of the Family and Domestic Violence Response Team.
•
Not taking action consistent with legislative responsibilities of the Children and Community Services Act 2004, and associated policy, to determine whether children were in need of protection or whether action was required to safeguard child wellbeing.
•
Not adequately meeting policies and procedures relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child placement principle, permanency planning and cultural care planning.
•
Missed opportunity to develop safety planning to reduce the risk of an escalation of family and domestic violence, when children are taken into the care of the Chief Executive Officer.
•
Missed opportunity to ensure governance, monitoring and evaluation of a family and domestic violence five-year initiative were in place to achieve positive outcomes.
•
Inaccurate recordkeeping.
Overview
The Australian Domestic and Family Violence Death Review Network (the Network) was established in 2011 to formalise and coordinate collaboration between death review mechanisms across Australia to share outcomes of reviews into deaths and homicides related to domestic violence where there is an identified history of abuse between the parties preceding the death. The Network has developed a National Minimum Dataset (NMDS) to identify key trends and patterns in intimate partner homicide with an identified history of domestic and family violence. Intimate partner homicides with no identifiable history of domestic and family violence are not included in the dataset. While most jurisdictions across Australia have formalised death review teams, the Australian Capital Territory is in the process of developing a formal death review process and Tasmania currently has no formal death review process. Several jurisdictions produce annual reports and case studies about domestic and family violence deaths which can be found on their websites.
Key data findings from the NMDS (reproduced from the Australian Domestic and Family Violence Death Review Network, & Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety’s Australian Domestic and Family Violence Death Review Network Data Report: Intimate partner violence homicides 2010–2018 (2022) include:
Complete IPV homicide dataset (n=311)
•
Between 1 July 2010 and 30 June 2018, there were 311 IPV homicides across Australia.
•
More than three quarters of all cases involved a male IPV homicide offender killing a current or former female partner (n=240, 77.2%). The vast majority of those male offenders had been the primary user of domestic violence behaviours against the woman they killed (n=227, 94.6%).
•
Less than one quarter of all cases involved a female IPV homicide offender killing a current or former male partner (n=65, 20.9%). Even though the female partner was the homicide offender, in the majority of these cases she was also the primary domestic violence victim, who killed her male abuser (n=46, 70.8%).
•
In six cases, a male IPV homicide offender killed a male partner. Of these, three homicide offenders were the primary abuser against the partner they killed; two offenders were the primary victim of abuse; and in one case both parties mutually used domestic violence against each other.
•
There were no cases identified in this dataset where a female IPV homicide offender killed a female partner.
•
IPV homicide occurs across a broad age range. There was an age range of 18 to 82 years for male offenders and 18 to 75 years for female homicide offenders. Homicide victims’ ages ranged from 16 to 78 years for female victims and from 18 to 76 years old for male homicide victims.
•
The duration of relationship between homicide offenders and victims in this dataset ranged from less than a year to 45 years. This demonstrates that IPV homicides can occur at any stage during a relationship.
•
The majority of IPV homicide offenders (n=183, 60%) engaged in problematic drug and/or alcohol use. Importantly, this finding does not purport to identify problematic substance use as a causative factor for IPV homicide, but rather represents a pattern of behaviour and identifies possible sites of intervention.
•
Only approximately one third of all IPV homicide offenders and victims were engaged in paid employment at the time of the homicide (n=225 of 622, 36.2%). This is significant because workplaces can offer an additional site of intervention for domestic and family violence.
•
The data demonstrates an overrepresentation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as both IPV homicide victims and offenders. While acknowledging these high rates, it is important to recognise that domestic and family violence is not a part of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures, and there is a complex range of interrelated factors associated with the disproportionate incidence and severity of family violence in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities (discussed in the report below).
Male IPV homicide offenders who killed a female intimate partner (n=240)
•
Most male IPV homicide offenders killed a current female partner (n=154, 64.2%). Fewer killed a former female partner (n=86, 35.8%).
•
The majority of male IPV homicide offenders killed their current or former female partner in her home (n=151, 62.9%). In 97 of these cases (64.2%) this was a home the woman shared with the offender and in 54 cases (35.8%) this was the home the woman lived in but did not share with the offender.
•
The most common criminal justice outcome for male IPV homicide offenders who killed a female victim was a murder conviction (n=121, 63.0%). Forty-four male homicide offenders suicided after the homicide (18.3%) and in the majority of these cases, they suicided within 24 hours of the homicide (n=32, 72.7% of male offenders who suicided).
Female IPV offenders who killed a male intimate partner (n=65)
•
Most female IPV homicide offenders killed a current male partner (n=50, 76.9%). Fewer killed a former male partner (n=15, 23.1%).
•
Over two fifths of female IPV homicide offenders killed their partner in their shared residence (n=28, 43.1%). In nine cases the homicide occurred in the male partner’s home and in a further nine cases the homicide occurred in the female homicide offender’s home (13.8% respectively).
•
The most common criminal justice outcome for female IPV homicide offenders was a manslaughter conviction (n=40, 62.5%). One female IPV homicide offender suicided after the homicide.
IPV homicide and children
•
There were four cases in which children were killed together with their mother, resulting in the deaths of eight children.
•
Of the 311 IPV homicides examined in this dataset, there were at least 172 children under the age of 18 who survived the homicide involving one, or both, of their parents.
Focused IPV homicide dataset (n=292)
Domestic violence death review teams are uniquely positioned to conduct in-depth analysis and reviews so as to identify discrete characteristics present within a relationship prior to an IPV homicide. Drawing on data from those jurisdictions with a formalised death review mechanism in place, this report presents focused data findings around IPV homicide characteristics relating to separation or intention to separate, family law proceedings, domestic violence orders, and the nature of domestic violence and abusive behaviours used by the abuser prior to the homicide.
This focused subset of cases includes 224 cases where a male IPV homicide offender killed a female victim; 62 cases where a female IPV homicide offender killed a male partner; and six cases where a male IPV homicide offender killed a male partner.
Separation as a characteristic of IPV homicide
Male IPV homicide offenders who killed a female partner (n=224)
•
In about a third of the cases where a male IPV homicide offender killed a female victim (n=77, 34.4%) the relationship had ended prior to the homicide. In more than half of these cases, the relationship had ended within three months of the fatal episode of violence (n=44, 57.1% of separated couples).
•
Of the 147 cases where the relationship was ongoing, one or both parties had expressed an intention to separate in 53 cases (36.1%). The overwhelming majority of these cases involved the female homicide victim indicating an intention to separate from the male offender who killed her (n=50, 94.3%).
•
Accordingly, actual or intended separation was a feature in more than half of the cases where a male IPV homicide offender killed a female partner (n=130, 58.0%).
Female IPV homicide offenders who killed a male partner (n=62)
•
In just under a quarter of cases where a female IPV homicide offender killed a male partner the relationship had ended prior to the homicide (n=14, 22.6%). Five of these separations occurred less than three months prior to the homicide (35.7% of separated relationships).
•
Of the 48 cases where the relationship was ongoing, one or both parties had indicated an intention to leave the relationship in 14 cases (29.2%). In the majority of these 14 cases, it was the female homicide offender who had indicated an intention to separate from the male partner she then killed (n=8, 57.1%).
•
Accordingly, actual or intended separation was a feature in just under half of the cases where a female IPV homicide offender killed a male intimate partner (n=28, 45.2%).
Domestic violence orders
Male IPV homicide offenders who killed a female partner (n=224)
•
Current or historical domestic violence orders were evident in 96 cases where a male IPV homicide offender killed a female partner (42.9%). Accordingly, in 128 cases there was no evidence of a current or historical domestic violence order (57.1%).
•
In 49 cases, a current domestic violence order was in place between the male IPV offender and female victim at the time of the homicide (21.9%). The vast majority of these orders named the female homicide victim as the person in need of protection from the male homicide offender (n=44, 89.8% of cases with a current order). In two cases (4.1%) there were cross-orders in place at the time of the homicide where both the male IPV homicide offender and the female victim were named as needing protection from the other. In three cases (6.1%) the male IPV homicide offender was named as the person in need of protection from the female partner they killed.
•
Historical domestic violence orders between the male homicide offender and female victim were a feature in 67 cases (29.9%). In 53 of these cases, the female homicide victim was named as the protected person from the male offender (79.1%) and in 11 cases both parties were named as needing protection from the other (16.4%).
Female IPV homicide offenders who killed a male partner (n=62)
•
Current or historical domestic violence orders were evident in 41 cases where a female homicide offender killed a male partner (66.1% of female-perpetrated IPV homicides).
•
In 21 cases, a current domestic violence order was in place between the female homicide offender and the male homicide victim at the time of the homicide (33.9%). Twelve of these orders named the female homicide offender as the person in need of protection from the male homicide victim (57.1% of current orders); eight named the male homicide victim as the person in need of protection from the female homicide offender (38.1%); and one was a cross-order naming both parties as needing protection from each other (4.8%).
•
Historical domestic violence orders between the female homicide offender and male homicide victim were a feature in 29 cases (46.8%). In 17 of these cases, the female homicide offender was named as the protected person from the male homicide victim (58.6%) and in 11 cases both parties were named as in need of protection from each other (37.9%).
Domestic violence abusive behaviours
•
In the focused dataset (n=292), the vast majority of the 224 male IPV homicide offenders who killed a female victim were identified as the primary domestic violence abuser in the relationship (n=212, 94.6%). Of the 62 cases where a female IPV homicide offender killed a male partner, only a small proportion of women were identified as the primary abuser against the male partner they killed (n=5, 8.1%). In half of the six cases where a male IPV homicide offender killed a male partner, the homicide offender was identified as the primary abuser in the relationship (n=3, 50%).
•
Of the 212 cases in which a male primary domestic violence abuser killed a female victim, the majority used emotional and psychological abuse (n=173, 81.6%) and physical abuse (n=169, 79.7%) against the female partner they killed. Over half had been socially abusive (n=134, 63.2%), just over a quarter were financially abusive (n=58, 27.4%) and far fewer were known to be sexually abusive (n=34, 16.0%).
•
Stalking occurred in two fifths of the 212 cases in which a male primary domestic violence abuser killed a female victim (n=88, 41.5%). In 71 cases, the domestic violence abuser stalked the victim during the relationship (33.5%) and in 44 cases the abuser stalked the victim after the relationship ended (20.8%).
Overview
The Australian Domestic and Family Violence Death Review Network (the Network) was established in 2011 to formalise and coordinate collaboration between death review mechanisms across Australia to share outcomes of reviews into deaths and homicides related to domestic violence where there is an identified history of abuse between the parties preceding the death. The Network has developed a National Minimum Dataset (NMDS) to identify key trends and patterns in intimate partner homicide with an identified history of domestic and family violence. Intimate partner homicides with no identifiable history of domestic and family violence are not included in the dataset. While most jurisdictions across Australia have formalised death review teams, the Australian Capital Territory is in the process of developing a formal death review process and Tasmania currently has no formal death review process. Several jurisdictions produce annual reports and case studies about domestic and family violence deaths which can be found on their websites.
Key data findings from the NMDS (reproduced from the Australian Domestic and Family Violence Death Review Network, & Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety’s Australian Domestic and Family Violence Death Review Network Data Report: Intimate partner violence homicides 2010–2018 (2022) include:
Complete IPV homicide dataset (n=311)
•
Between 1 July 2010 and 30 June 2018, there were 311 IPV homicides across Australia.
•
More than three quarters of all cases involved a male IPV homicide offender killing a current or former female partner (n=240, 77.2%). The vast majority of those male offenders had been the primary user of domestic violence behaviours against the woman they killed (n=227, 94.6%).
•
Less than one quarter of all cases involved a female IPV homicide offender killing a current or former male partner (n=65, 20.9%). Even though the female partner was the homicide offender, in the majority of these cases she was also the primary domestic violence victim, who killed her male abuser (n=46, 70.8%).
•
In six cases, a male IPV homicide offender killed a male partner. Of these, three homicide offenders were the primary abuser against the partner they killed; two offenders were the primary victim of abuse; and in one case both parties mutually used domestic violence against each other.
•
There were no cases identified in this dataset where a female IPV homicide offender killed a female partner.
•
IPV homicide occurs across a broad age range. There was an age range of 18 to 82 years for male offenders and 18 to 75 years for female homicide offenders. Homicide victims’ ages ranged from 16 to 78 years for female victims and from 18 to 76 years old for male homicide victims.
•
The duration of relationship between homicide offenders and victims in this dataset ranged from less than a year to 45 years. This demonstrates that IPV homicides can occur at any stage during a relationship.
•
The majority of IPV homicide offenders (n=183, 60%) engaged in problematic drug and/or alcohol use. Importantly, this finding does not purport to identify problematic substance use as a causative factor for IPV homicide, but rather represents a pattern of behaviour and identifies possible sites of intervention.
•
Only approximately one third of all IPV homicide offenders and victims were engaged in paid employment at the time of the homicide (n=225 of 622, 36.2%). This is significant because workplaces can offer an additional site of intervention for domestic and family violence.
•
The data demonstrates an overrepresentation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as both IPV homicide victims and offenders. While acknowledging these high rates, it is important to recognise that domestic and family violence is not a part of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures, and there is a complex range of interrelated factors associated with the disproportionate incidence and severity of family violence in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities (discussed in the report below).
Male IPV homicide offenders who killed a female intimate partner (n=240)
•
Most male IPV homicide offenders killed a current female partner (n=154, 64.2%). Fewer killed a former female partner (n=86, 35.8%).
•
The majority of male IPV homicide offenders killed their current or former female partner in her home (n=151, 62.9%). In 97 of these cases (64.2%) this was a home the woman shared with the offender and in 54 cases (35.8%) this was the home the woman lived in but did not share with the offender.
•
The most common criminal justice outcome for male IPV homicide offenders who killed a female victim was a murder conviction (n=121, 63.0%). Forty-four male homicide offenders suicided after the homicide (18.3%) and in the majority of these cases, they suicided within 24 hours of the homicide (n=32, 72.7% of male offenders who suicided).
Female IPV offenders who killed a male intimate partner (n=65)
•
Most female IPV homicide offenders killed a current male partner (n=50, 76.9%). Fewer killed a former male partner (n=15, 23.1%).
•
Over two fifths of female IPV homicide offenders killed their partner in their shared residence (n=28, 43.1%). In nine cases the homicide occurred in the male partner’s home and in a further nine cases the homicide occurred in the female homicide offender’s home (13.8% respectively).
•
The most common criminal justice outcome for female IPV homicide offenders was a manslaughter conviction (n=40, 62.5%). One female IPV homicide offender suicided after the homicide.
IPV homicide and children
•
There were four cases in which children were killed together with their mother, resulting in the deaths of eight children.
•
Of the 311 IPV homicides examined in this dataset, there were at least 172 children under the age of 18 who survived the homicide involving one, or both, of their parents.
Focused IPV homicide dataset (n=292)
Domestic violence death review teams are uniquely positioned to conduct in-depth analysis and reviews so as to identify discrete characteristics present within a relationship prior to an IPV homicide. Drawing on data from those jurisdictions with a formalised death review mechanism in place, this report presents focused data findings around IPV homicide characteristics relating to separation or intention to separate, family law proceedings, domestic violence orders, and the nature of domestic violence and abusive behaviours used by the abuser prior to the homicide.
This focused subset of cases includes 224 cases where a male IPV homicide offender killed a female victim; 62 cases where a female IPV homicide offender killed a male partner; and six cases where a male IPV homicide offender killed a male partner.
Separation as a characteristic of IPV homicide
Male IPV homicide offenders who killed a female partner (n=224)
•
In about a third of the cases where a male IPV homicide offender killed a female victim (n=77, 34.4%) the relationship had ended prior to the homicide. In more than half of these cases, the relationship had ended within three months of the fatal episode of violence (n=44, 57.1% of separated couples).
•
Of the 147 cases where the relationship was ongoing, one or both parties had expressed an intention to separate in 53 cases (36.1%). The overwhelming majority of these cases involved the female homicide victim indicating an intention to separate from the male offender who killed her (n=50, 94.3%).
•
Accordingly, actual or intended separation was a feature in more than half of the cases where a male IPV homicide offender killed a female partner (n=130, 58.0%).
Female IPV homicide offenders who killed a male partner (n=62)
•
In just under a quarter of cases where a female IPV homicide offender killed a male partner the relationship had ended prior to the homicide (n=14, 22.6%). Five of these separations occurred less than three months prior to the homicide (35.7% of separated relationships).
•
Of the 48 cases where the relationship was ongoing, one or both parties had indicated an intention to leave the relationship in 14 cases (29.2%). In the majority of these 14 cases, it was the female homicide offender who had indicated an intention to separate from the male partner she then killed (n=8, 57.1%).
•
Accordingly, actual or intended separation was a feature in just under half of the cases where a female IPV homicide offender killed a male intimate partner (n=28, 45.2%).
Domestic violence orders
Male IPV homicide offenders who killed a female partner (n=224)
•
Current or historical domestic violence orders were evident in 96 cases where a male IPV homicide offender killed a female partner (42.9%). Accordingly, in 128 cases there was no evidence of a current or historical domestic violence order (57.1%).
•
In 49 cases, a current domestic violence order was in place between the male IPV offender and female victim at the time of the homicide (21.9%). The vast majority of these orders named the female homicide victim as the person in need of protection from the male homicide offender (n=44, 89.8% of cases with a current order). In two cases (4.1%) there were cross-orders in place at the time of the homicide where both the male IPV homicide offender and the female victim were named as needing protection from the other. In three cases (6.1%) the male IPV homicide offender was named as the person in need of protection from the female partner they killed.
•
Historical domestic violence orders between the male homicide offender and female victim were a feature in 67 cases (29.9%). In 53 of these cases, the female homicide victim was named as the protected person from the male offender (79.1%) and in 11 cases both parties were named as needing protection from the other (16.4%).
Female IPV homicide offenders who killed a male partner (n=62)
•
Current or historical domestic violence orders were evident in 41 cases where a female homicide offender killed a male partner (66.1% of female-perpetrated IPV homicides).
•
In 21 cases, a current domestic violence order was in place between the female homicide offender and the male homicide victim at the time of the homicide (33.9%). Twelve of these orders named the female homicide offender as the person in need of protection from the male homicide victim (57.1% of current orders); eight named the male homicide victim as the person in need of protection from the female homicide offender (38.1%); and one was a cross-order naming both parties as needing protection from each other (4.8%).
•
Historical domestic violence orders between the female homicide offender and male homicide victim were a feature in 29 cases (46.8%). In 17 of these cases, the female homicide offender was named as the protected person from the male homicide victim (58.6%) and in 11 cases both parties were named as in need of protection from each other (37.9%).
Domestic violence abusive behaviours
•
In the focused dataset (n=292), the vast majority of the 224 male IPV homicide offenders who killed a female victim were identified as the primary domestic violence abuser in the relationship (n=212, 94.6%). Of the 62 cases where a female IPV homicide offender killed a male partner, only a small proportion of women were identified as the primary abuser against the male partner they killed (n=5, 8.1%). In half of the six cases where a male IPV homicide offender killed a male partner, the homicide offender was identified as the primary abuser in the relationship (n=3, 50%).
•
Of the 212 cases in which a male primary domestic violence abuser killed a female victim, the majority used emotional and psychological abuse (n=173, 81.6%) and physical abuse (n=169, 79.7%) against the female partner they killed. Over half had been socially abusive (n=134, 63.2%), just over a quarter were financially abusive (n=58, 27.4%) and far fewer were known to be sexually abusive (n=34, 16.0%).
•
Stalking occurred in two fifths of the 212 cases in which a male primary domestic violence abuser killed a female victim (n=88, 41.5%). In 71 cases, the domestic violence abuser stalked the victim during the relationship (33.5%) and in 44 cases the abuser stalked the victim after the relationship ended (20.8%).