Australia
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 4510.0 - Recorded Crime - Victims, Australia, 2021.
Victims of Domestic and Family Violence-Related Offences
This chapter presents experimental data about victims of selected Family and Domestic Violence (FDV) –related offences. Victims of selected offences have been determined to be FDV–related where the relationship of offender to victim, as stored on police recording systems, falls within a specified family or domestic relationship or where an FDV flag has been recorded, following a police investigation.
Key findings include:
•
FDV-related homicide victims accounted for over a third of total homicide victims, and females accounted for over half of all FDV-related homicide victims.
•
FDV-related assault is mostly likely to occur in the age range 25-34 years; and, across all states and territories, females are more likely than males to be victims – at least three times as likely, and up to six times more likely.
•
FDV-related sexual assault accounted for over a third of total sexual assaults and there are six times as many female victims as male victims.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), Personal Safety, Australia, 2021-2022, ABS cat no. 4906.0 (2016).
This release presents information from the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ (ABS) 2016 Personal Safety Survey (PSS).
The survey collected detailed information from men and women about their experiences of violence since the age of 18, as well as experiences of current and previous partner violence, stalking, physical and sexual abuse and harassment, abuse before the age of 15, and general feelings of safety.
Women | Men |
|---|---|
Prevalence since the age of 15 | |
2 in 5 women experienced violence (39%) | 2 in 5 men experienced violence (43%) |
1 in 5 women experienced sexual violence (22%) | 1 in 16 men experienced sexual violence (6.1%) |
1 in 3 women experienced physical violence (31%) | 2 in 5 men experienced physical violence (42%) |
1 in 5 women experienced stalking (20%) | 1 in 15 men experienced stalking (6.8%) |
Prevalence of intimate partner and family member violence since the age of 15 | |
1 in 4 women experienced violence by an intimate partner or family member (27%) | 1 in 8 men experienced violence by an intimate partner or family member (12%) |
1 in 12 women experienced violence by a family member (8.1%) | 1 in 17 men experienced violence by a family member (5.9%) |
1 in 4 women experienced violence by an intimate partner (23%) | 1 in 14 men experienced violence by an intimate partner (7.3%) |
1 in 11 women experienced violence by a boyfriend, girlfriend, or date (9.3%) | 1 in 44 men experienced violence by a boyfriend, girlfriend, or date (2.3%*) |
1 in 6 women experienced cohabitating partner violence (17%) | 1 in 18 men experienced cohabiting partner violence (5.5%) |
1 in 4 women experienced cohabiting partner emotional abuse (23%) | 1 in 7 men experienced cohabiting partner emotional abuse (14%) |
1 in 6 women experienced cohabiting partner economic abuse (16&) | 1 in 13 men experienced cohabiting economic abuse (7.8%) |
Experiences before the age of 15 | |
1 in 6 women experienced childhood abuse (18%) | 1 in 9 men experienced childhood abuse (11%) |
1 in 6 women witnessed parental violence during childhood (16%) | 1 in 9 men witnessed parental violence during childhood (11%) |
*estimates has a relative standard error of 25% to 50% and should be used with caution
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Family, domestic and sexual violence in Australia (Report, 2018).
This report usefully compiles and summarises current statistics on family violence, domestic violence and sexual violence from multiple sources. Its key points are:
•
women are at greater risk of family, domestic and sexual violence;
•
some groups of women are more vulnerable to all three types of violence (in particular, women who are Indigenous, young, pregnant, separating from a partner or experiencing financial hardship and women with disability);
•
children are often exposed to the violence;
•
the three types of violence are leading causes of homelessness and adverse health consequences for women and create significant financial cost; and
•
family violence is worse for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
The report also identifies important gaps in the current research on family, domestic and sexual violence. No or limited data is available on:
•
children’s experiences, including attitudes, prevalence, severity, frequency, impacts and outcomes of these forms of violence;
•
specific at-risk population groups, including Indigenous Australians, people with disability, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people, including those in same-sex relationships;
•
the effect of known risk factors, such as socioeconomic status, employment, income and geographical location;
•
services and responses that victims and perpetrators receive, including specialist services, mainstream services and police and justice responses;
•
pathways, impacts and outcomes for victims and perpetrators; and
•
the evaluation of programs and interventions.
Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety. Violence against women: Accurate use of key statistics (ANROWS, 2018).
This ‘Key Facts’ sheet prevents an overview of statistics sourced primarily from research from the 2016 ABS Personal Safety Survey and Australian Institute of Criminology. It identifies for example that in Australia:
•
women are significantly more likely than men to experience domestic and family violence;
•
Approximately one quarter of women have experienced at least one incident of violence by an intimate partner;
•
On average, one woman a week is killed by her intimate partner;
•
Women are most likely to experience physical assault in their home;
•
Just over 9 out of 10 women reported that their last incident of physical assault by a male was perpetrated by a man they know (most commonly a former partner);
•
Just under 9 out of 10 women reported that their last incident of sexual assault was perpetrated by a man they know (most commonly a former partner); and
•
Of women who have experienced violence by a current partner since the age of 15, 82% had never contacted the police.
Bagshaw, Dale, and Donna Chung, Women, Men and Domestic Violence (Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (Cth) and University of South Australia, 2000).
Discusses research over the past two decades in Australia and notes it has shown that violence generally, and particularly domestic violence, is mainly carried out by men.(p1) While there is evidence that both men and women are abusive in domestic relationships, most data show that men are more likely than women to be violent towards their partners. It reviews the findings of research and notes that these differ greatly according to the way the research is done, but they clearly show that the nature and results of men’s violence are different to that of women’s violence in a number of significant ways. In particular: men’s violence is more severe, and more likely to inflict severe injury; women are more likely to be killed by current or former male partners than by anyone else; and less than 10% of Australian male homicides are carried out by an intimate partner. When women do kill their male partners, there is a history of domestic violence in more than 70% of cases.’ (p1)
Specifically in relation to female perpetrators of domestic violence, the authors note on p13 that ‘Although there is some evidence that both men and women engage in abusive behaviour in heterosexual relationships, the nature and consequence of women’s violence is not equivalent to men’s violence [in a number of ways]’, including severity, likelihood of being killed, and reasons for the violence.
Belknap, Joanne, and Heather Melton, ‘Are Heterosexual Men Also Victims of Intimate Partner Abuse?’ (Research Paper, Applied Research Forum: National Electronic Network on Violence Against Women, March 2005).
This paper presents and discusses the varied findings on women’s roles as perpetrators of intimate partner abuse (IPA). The reasons for these varied findings are examined and the implications of the research finding of gender symmetry in the perpetration of IPA are discussed. This paper documents the importance of the approach taken by the researcher regarding whether IPA is found to be gendered. This overview of scientific research concludes that IPA is indeed gendered, that the perpetrators are more commonly men and the victims are more commonly women. This review also emphasises the importance of not simply examining types of abuse reported, but the consequences of the abuse.
Boxall H & Morgan A 2021. Experiences of coercive control among Australian women. Statistical Bulletin no. 30. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
Abstract: Awareness of coercive control within the context of abusive intimate relationships is greater than ever before in Australia. However, there is limited research examining the different patterns and characteristics of abuse, particularly among large Australian samples.
This study examines the characteristics of violence and abuse reported by 1,023 Australian women who had recently experienced coercive control by their current or former partner. The most frequently reported behaviours were jealousy and suspicion of friends, constant insults, monitoring of movements and financial abuse. Over half of the respondents also reported experiencing physical forms of abuse (54%), including severe forms such as non-fatal strangulation (27%). One in three of these women also reported experiencing sexual violence during the survey period (30%). Women were much more likely to seek advice or support when they had also experienced physical or sexual forms of abuse.
Bricknell, S. (2023) Homicide in Australia 2020-2021. (National Homicide Monitoring Program) Sydney: Australian Institute of Criminology.
Statistical Report 42 reports: Between 1 July 2020 and 30 June 2021, there were 210 homicide incidents recorded by Australian state and territory police. In 2020–21, 36 percent (n=76) of homicide incidents were domestic homicides.
Of the 76 domestic homicides in 2020–21, half (50%, n=38) were intimate partner homicides. Intimate partner homicides comprised 18 percent of homicide incidents in Australia in 2020‒21.
Another 12 homicides (6% of all homicide incidents) were filicides (where a parent killed their son or daughter), 11 (5%) were parricides (where a parent was killed by their son or daughter), four (2%) were siblicides (a brother or sister killed a sibling) and 11 (5%) were homicides of other family members or kin. (p6)
Intimate partner homicide (n=2,102) comprised 60 percent of domestic homicides and 24 percent of all homicide incidents between 1989‒90 and 2020‒21. Threequarters (76%, n=1,589) of these were female intimate partner homicides and a quarter were male intimate partner homicides (24%, n=513). (p15) Females are significantly more likely to be killed by an intimate partner or family member (69%, n=45), mostly by their current or former intimate partner (38%, n=25). (p14). (see Table A8, p38)
Bruton, Crystal and Danielle Tyson, Leaving Violent Men: A Study of Women’s Experiences of Separation in Victoria, Australia (2017) 51(3) Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 339-354.
This article explores women’s experiences of leaving abusive relationships and seeks to combat assumptions about the nature of such relationships through in-depth interviews with 12 women who had separated from their male intimate partners (p 5). While separation is broadly recognised as a key time for increased risk of violence towards women and their children (p 1), studies demonstrate that most people believe women are able to leave violent relationships, and do not understand why they might stay (p 2). Such views place the responsibility for ending the violence on women, but in reality, these relationships often include complex circumstances, and the ‘stay/leave binary’ is rarely applicable (p 2). The results indicate that women’s experiences of coercive control significantly affected their decision-making in the context of separation (p 6):
•
Many women feared leaving because they were aware that separation may provoke retaliatory violence, with some experiencing an escalation of abusive behaviour when they attempted to leave (p 7);
•
Many women were motivated to leave the relationship in order to protect their children, especially where violence became directed towards the children (p 8);
•
Women’s attempts to leave their relationships were often hindered by their partner’s control over their finances (p 9); and
•
Women adopted strategies to manage their safety both during and following separation (pp 9-10), and many women experienced escalating violence after separation (pp 11-12).
Coumarelos, C., Weeks, N., Bernstein, S., Roberts, N., Honey, N., Minter, K., & Carlisle, E. (2023). Attitudes matter: The 2021 National Community Attitudes towards Violence against Women Survey (NCAS), Findings for Australia. (Research report 02/2023). ANROWS. https://ncas.au/
The NCAS findings are drawn from interviews with a representative sample of 19,100 Australians aged 16 years or over. The NCAS findings show that ‘generally been slow but statistically significant improvement in community understanding of violence against women and attitudinal rejection of gender inequality and violence against women since 2013, according to all NCAS scales’ however:
•
47% of people surveyed agreed that violence against women is a problem in their own suburb or town.
•
91% of respondents agreed that violence against women is a problem in Australia.
•
41% of respondents believed that domestic violence is equally committed by both men and women.
•
34% of respondents believed that it is common for sexual assault accusations to be used as a way of getting back at men (contrary to evidence).
Day, Andrew, Sharon Casey, Adam Gerace, Candice Oster and Deb O’Kane, The forgotten victims: prisoner experience of victimisation and engagement with the criminal justice system – Research report (ANROWS, 2018).
The following summarises the key aspects of this research report:
Premise
Many women in prison have experienced intimate partner violence. As this form of violence is often intergenerational and entrenched, women in prison are widely considered to be at particular risk of ongoing victimisation following release from custody. And yet, their support needs often go unrecognised, and it is likely that a range of barriers exists that prevent ex-prisoners from accessing services.
Approach
This research documents data from interviews with and surveys of 22 women incarcerated in Adelaide Women’s Prison, as well as interviews with 12 key South Australian agencies and service providers, to arrive at an understanding of help-seeking behaviour and how this might inform service responses. The analysis is positioned within a review of current help-seeking theories that highlight how a wide range of individual, socio-cultural and structural factors can complicate a woman’s decision to seek help when concerned for her personal safety, noting that the circumstances and personal histories of women in prison increase the barriers to effective help-seeking when they face violence following release.
Key observations
•
The interviews with the women prisoners revealed their:
◦
lack of awareness of when they should seek external support
◦
lack of knowledge of available services
◦
pervasive sense of mistrust and under-confidence in existing services
◦
sense that better approaches can be developed drawing on the strengths of women, their peers and families.
•
Women’s experience of formal and informal support-seeking (positive and negative) often determine how they define intimate partner violence and whether they decide to seek to change their circumstances.
•
Agencies and service providers expressed a range of views about the services that should be made available to women leaving prison, and these views were commonly shared by the women prisoners interviewed. It was acknowledged by both groups that services are not always visible or accessible to the women. There was also no sense that any integrated pathway for identifying and managing risk currently exists.
Conclusions
•
Need identified for all jurisdictions: to clearly identify women in prison as a particularly vulnerable group who are likely to be at elevated risk of ongoing victimisation and intimate partner violence and who face significant barriers preventing them from accessing the types of services that may help them to keep safe; and take a specialised and integrated approach in addressing their needs. Successful models of reintegration are discussed.
•
Need identified for people with lived experience of incarceration to be part of the service framework (design, delivery and goverance) in the community sector.
•
Need identified for services and programs to reflect an understanding of the role violence in the lives of people who seek help (ie trauma-informed care)
Limitations
This research did not make conclusions about different cohorts of women prisoners having specific needs, for example women from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural backgrounds.
Henry, Nicola, Asher Flynn and Anastasia Powell, Image-based sexual abuse: Victims and perpetrators (Australian Institute of Criminology Report No. 572 March 2019).
Report abstract:
Image-based sexual abuse (IBSA) refers to the non-consensual creation, distribution or threatened distribution of nude or sexual images. This research examines the prevalence, nature and impacts of IBSA victimisation and perpetration in Australia. This form of abuse was found to be relatively common among respondents surveyed and to disproportionately affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, people with a disability, homosexual and bisexual people and young people. The nature of victimisation and perpetration was found to differ by gender, with males more likely to perpetrate IBSA, and females more likely to be victimised by a partner or ex-partner.
Loxton, Deborah et al., Intimate Partner Violence Adversely Impacts Health over 16 years and across generations: a longitudinal cohort study (2017) PLoS ONE12(6): e0178138.
This study involved 16,761 participants in the Australian Longitudinal study on Women’s Health, using six waves of survey data over 16 years. It found that women who had experienced intimate partner violence (IPV) reported poorer mental and physical health throughout their lives (p5). Compared with women who had never experienced IPV, women who have experienced IPV endure poorer physical health throughout their lives (p6). Women who have experienced IPV consistently ranked approximately 5 points lower on the SF-36 scale (a measurement of quality of life out of 100). Women who experience IPV also have poorer mental health throughout their lives (p6). They rank between 5 and 10 points lower throughout their lives (p 8).
Mansour, Julia, Women Defendants to AVOS: What is their experience of the justice system? (Women’s Legal Services NSW, 2014).
Women’s Legal Services NSW (‘WLS’) undertook an exploratory study of its 2010 experience of representing women who were defendants to Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (‘AVO’) proceedings in order to better understand what to be a growing phenomenon. The research was limited by a number of factors and is not a random sample of all NSW cases. However the results illustrate some of the systemic issues experienced by women AVO defendants’. These results were:
•
Two-thirds of women clients defending AVOs reported that they were the victims of violence in their relationships.
•
‘Many of the women defending AVOs reported that when police had been called after a violent incident, they felt that their version of events had not been viewed as credible compared with the other party, due to the circumstances of their heightened stress and anxiety’.
•
‘Other women reported that they believed the other party had deliberately initiated AVO proceedings as a further mechanism of controlling their behaviour, by giving them the ability to threaten them with reports to police in the future’.
•
‘In the majority of cases where women were defending AVOs, the other party's complaint related to a single incident only. In several of these cases injuries to the other party could be indicative of self-defence, such as scratching or biting on the arm or hand’ (page 4).
The report suggests (1) improved data collection (2) the Bureau of Crimes Statistics and Research undertake a separate project into the experience of women defendants to AVOs (3) the NSW Police strengthen policies and procedures around identifying the ‘primary victim’ and provide continuous training on the dynamics of family violence (4) the NSW government take into account the findings of this report in its reforms (page 4).
Murray, Suellen, and Anastasia Powell, ‘“What’s the Problem?” Australian Public Policy Constructions of Domestic and Family Violence’ (2009) 15(5) Violence Against Women 532.
Discusses the framing of domestic violence (from p539) and notes that: ‘a gender-based framework of violence against women recognizes that domestic violence occurs within the wider context of social disadvantage and inequality experienced by women relative to men, which, for some women, means that their vulnerability is heightened. Women are more likely to be economically dependent than men, with women typically having the care of children. Furthermore, women are more likely than men to fear violence from their partner. Domestic violence reflects gender relations and also contributes to the construction of ideas and practices about gender, further enforcing gender relations (p539). References other research and notes that gender always intersects with age, sexuality, ethnicity, and the range of social categories (p540).
National Council to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, Background Paper to Time for Action: The National Council’s Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, 2009–2021 (2009).
•
‘While both women and men can be perpetrators and/or victims of sexual assault and domestic and family violence, research shows that the overwhelming majority of violence and abuse is perpetrated by men against women’ (p25).
•
‘The biggest risk factor for becoming a victim of sexual assault and/or domestic and family violence is being a woman’ (p26).
Salter, M., et al., A deep wound under my heart": Constructions of complex trauma and implications for women’s wellbeing and safety from violence (ANROWS, 2020)
Complex trauma can be explained as "multiple, repeated forms of interpersonal victimisation and the resulting traumatic health problems and psychosocial challenges". This report aimed to (1) analyse how complex trauma experienced by women is constructed in public policy and practice at national, state and territory levels; (2) examine institutional responses to women’s complex trauma in the mental health, alcohol and drugs, and sexual assault/domestic violence sectors in NSW and Queensland; (3) document how complex trauma is understood by women who have experienced it, as well as their encounters with agencies while seeking help; and (4) develop models of improved and collaborative responses to improve the wellbeing and safety of victims and their children.
Key results include:
•
‘References to complex trauma in public policy are typically brief and undefined’, and ‘[t]he lack of shared terminology and understanding of complex trauma raises questions about the adequacy of current policy frameworks to address the multiple needs of people with experiences of complex trauma and the effects that varying understandings of the long-term impact of complex trauma may have on program and service delivery’.
•
Women who have experienced complex trauma often have multiple needs, but many services are funded only to deal with a particular issue or concern. Consequently, women are required to navigate multiple services and agencies so that their needs can be met.
•
‘Self-harm and suicidality are particularly stigmatised in service settings’, and ‘[w]omen with experiences of complex trauma frequently encountered sexist and disparaging views about women’s mental health, encapsulated in the common stereotype of the "crazy woman"’.
•
‘There is currently a lack of trauma-specialised services and professionals, and women’s experiences of health care are typically segmented and uncoordinated.’
•
‘Successful criminal justice outcomes for women with experiences of complex trauma are rare’. None of the women interviewed for the study stated that ‘the full extent of [their] victimisation had been prosecuted in the criminal justice system’.
•
‘There is widespread concern that the impact of trauma on parenting is not being addressed in the child protection system, resulting in late and punitive interventions.’
•
‘In family law matters, women are frequently not believed or supported when reporting abuse by an ex-partner and are often worse off financially and psychologically for their contact with the legal process.’
•
Best practices in service provision for people with experiences of complex trauma are set out on p. 9, and recommendations are specified on pp. 10-11.
International
Charlotte Barlow and Siobhan Weare, ‘Women as Co-Offenders: Pathways into Crime and Offending Motivations’ (2019) 58(1) The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice 86-103.
This article examines a qualitative study in the UK which aimed to investigate co-offending women’s pathways into, and motivations for engaging in, criminal behaviour. It considers not only the impact of co-offending relationships on women’s criminality, but also factors which intersect with these relationships in their lives. Interviews with eight women who accessed a women’s advice and support centre were conducted. Findings showed that while co-offending relationships were a central pathway into offending, this often intersected with other circumstances in the women’s lives, including drug addiction, socio-economic circumstances, and ‘significant life events’. Moreover, women who co-offended with female friends were more likely to acknowledge their agency than those who co-offended with intimate male partners. Findings also demonstrated the significance of understanding the complex nature of the lives co-offending women, and the decision-making process.
Dobash, Russell P, and R. Emerson Dobash, ‘Women’s Violence to Men in Intimate Relationships: Working on a Puzzle’ (2004) 44 (3) British Journal of Criminology 324.
Abstract: ‘We present quantitative and qualitative findings from 190 interviews with 95 couples in which men and women reported separately upon their own violence and upon that of their partner. Men's and women's violence are compared. The findings suggest that intimate partner violence is primarily an asymmetrical problem of men's violence to women, and women's violence does not equate to men's in terms of frequency, severity, consequences and the victim's sense of safety and wellbeing.
This article provides an overview of the debate between family violence research, and violence against women research, in relation to the symmetry of violence by men and women.
•
Findings from the study establish some general patterns, including that ‘First, regardless of who is reporting, it can be seen that many more men inflict every type of injury against women than do women against men’ (p337), and ‘Overall, the couples agree that the injuries inflicted by women upon men are less frequent and less severe’ (pp338). It goes on to discuss the context of women’s violence against male partners, including self-defence.
Epstein, Deborah, and Lisa A Goodman, ‘Discounting Credibility: Doubting the Testimony and Dismissing the Experiences of Domestic Violence Survivors and Other Women’ (2018) 167 University of Pennsylvania Law Review (forthcoming).
This article addresses the ways in which the credibility of female victims of intimate partner violence is discounted through their experiences of legal and social services (pp 3-4). The authors conclude that women’s experiences are frequently discounted, which itself can have further traumatic impacts. Judges and other professionals often discount women’s stories of abuse as implausible, particularly where the victims suffer from psychological trauma that may impact memory and comprehension (p 7). Women who suffer traumatic brain injuries (pp 9-11) or PTSD (pp 11-3) as a result of domestic violence are particularly susceptible to relaying inconsistent stories. The authors also find that cultural assumptions resulting in the prioritisation of physical over psychological violence causes judges and other authority figures to expect ‘real’ survivors to also prioritise physical harm, while in reality, victims may feel more significantly impacted by psychological abuse (pp 17-20).
Moreover, the results of the study indicate that gatekeepers often unjustly discount women’s personal trustworthiness, based on perceptions of their demeanour (pp 21-5), their perceived motive (pp 25-32), and their social location (pp 32-7). Even women who are able to overcome initial scepticism often find that the systems intended to provide assistance dismiss the importance of their experiences (p 37). In spite of meaningful progress, ‘the criminal justice system continues to discount important aspects of women’s experiences and to trivialize some of the harmful consequences that policies focused primarily on offender accountability often impose on survivors’ (p 38). Ultimately, ‘the arbiters of justice and social welfare adopt and enforce legal and social policies and practices with little regard for how they perpetuate patterns of abuse’ (p 1).
These experiences of minimisation often echo women’s previous experiences of abuse (p 46). The impacts of this discrediting are multifaceted: the dismissal itself constitutes its own injury, which can compound the harm such women experience directly from the abuse (pp 47-50); additionally, this instinctive devaluing of women’s testimony becomes an independent obstacle to attempts to obtain safety and justice (pp 50-2). The authors conclude that credibility discounting is widespread and pervasive, and requires genuine institutional reform (p 59). Particularly, actors must be aware of these internalised assumptions, and seek to engage more openly with victims (see pp 54-6).
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, Women as victims of partner violence - Justice for victims of violent crime, Part IV (April 2019).
This report, in line with the other reports from this project, highlights the importance of recognising victims’ rights. It specifically examines the experiences of women who endure partner violence – a crime that targets an individual’s dignity and core rights. It presents the findings from fieldwork in 7 EU Member States, including interviews with practitioners working in criminal justice systems and 35 women victims of partner violence. Victims were asked about their experiences with support organisations, the police, public prosecutors’ services and courts, and any protection mechanisms available to them against repeat victimisation. Evidence shows that women victims of partner violence lack effective protection due to the inadequacy of police responses, the shortcomings in the referral of victims to support services, the incompleteness of networks of support organisations, and the insufficiency in the implementation of court protection orders. In fact, the report found that 2 in 3 women who brought their victimisation to the attention of the police were left without any protection against repeat victimisation. The police neither arrested the offender, nor issued an emergency barring order.
Hester, Marianne, ‘Who Does What to Whom?’ (2013) 10(5) European Journal of Criminology 623.
Abstract: ‘The article discusses findings from the first study in Europe to track domestic violence cases over six years through the criminal justice system and compare cases involving male and female perpetrators. Ninety-six cases involving men and women recorded by the police in England as intimate domestic violence perpetrators were tracked to provide detailed narratives and progression of cases, establishing samples with a single male or female perpetrator or where both partners were recorded as perpetrators. Domestic violence involves a pattern of abusive behaviour over time and the in-depth longitudinal approach allowed similarities and differences in violent and abusive behaviours used by men and women, as recorded by the police, to be explored. Gender differences were found relating to the nature of cases, forms of violence recorded, frequency of incidents and levels of arrest.’
•
In reviewing the current literature, this paper notes that ‘qualitative evidence indicates that women are rarely the initiators of violence, are more likely to be acting in self-defence, and may be using a range of behaviours to do so’ (p625). It finds that ‘The vast majority of men had at least two repeat incidents recorded (83% of all male perpetrators), many a lot more than that, and one man had 52 repeat incidents recorded within the six-year tracking period. In contrast, nearly two-thirds of all women recorded as perpetrators had only one incident (62%), and the highest number of repeat incidents for any woman was eight. As expected from previous literature on service samples (Johnson, 2006), these data indicate that intensity and severity of violence and abusive behaviours from the men was much more extreme. This was also reflected in the nature of the violence used.’ (p628)
•
The paper concludes that ‘Men were the perpetrators in a much greater number of incidents; the violence used by men against female partners was much more severe than that used by women against men; violence by men was most likely to involve fear by and control of female victims; women were more likely to use weapons, often in order to protect themselves; and female perpetrators were more likely to be alcoholic, or mentally ill, although alcohol misuse by men had a greater impact on severity on outcomes’ (pp634-635)
‘The biggest risk factor for becoming a victim of sexual assault or domestic and family violence is being a woman.’
Prompted by growing academic, government and community attention to the range of complex issues associated with domestic and family violence, Australian researchers have considered the gendered nature of this form of violence. Claims that domestic and family violence is gender-equal or gender-neutral are consistently refuted by empirical research demonstrating that, while sometimes women are violent in their intimate relationships, overwhelmingly it is men who are more likely than women to be violent towards their partners.
The nature and consequences of men’s violence are significantly different from women’s violence, in particular: men’s violence is more severe, and is more likely to inflict serious injury, to involve the exercise of coercive control, and to cause fear; women are more likely than men to experience actual or threatened physical or sexual violence or emotional abuse by a partner; women experience much higher levels of violence and emotional abuse by former partners than by current partners; and women are more likely to be killed by current or former male partners than by anyone else. The data also indicate that although more rare, when women do kill their male partners, there is a history of domestic violence by the male partner in more than 70% of cases. Further research explains that the gendered framing of domestic and family violence recognises that this form of violence occurs within the wider context of social and economic disadvantage and inequality experienced by women in relation to men, which may mean that for some women multiple factors may intersect so as to heighten their vulnerability.
Recent research and statistical analyses verify earlier studies. Seventeen per cent of Australian women and 5.5 per cent of Australian men experience physical violence by their cohabiting partner. In 76% of cases where a woman is the victim of homicide, the current or intimate male partner is the perpetrator/offender. Women are also more likely than men to experience emotional abuse by their partner and are more likely to experience anxiety and fear as a result. Where women are the perpetrators of violence against their partners, they are also likely to be the victims of violence or sexual abuse by their partners and to be acting in self-defence, or to be suffering mental or physical ill health as a consequence.
In Australia, legislation, judicial bench books, and government policies have drawn on available research and recognise that while men can be victims of domestic and family violence and sexual assault the overwhelming majority of these behaviours are perpetrated by men against women, and that the most significant risk factor in this context is being a woman. These resources also recognise that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women, women from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, young women and women with physical or mental disabilities are overrepresented as victims.
‘The biggest risk factor for becoming a victim of sexual assault or domestic and family violence is being a woman.’
Prompted by growing academic, government and community attention to the range of complex issues associated with domestic and family violence, Australian researchers have considered the gendered nature of this form of violence. Claims that domestic and family violence is gender-equal or gender-neutral are consistently refuted by empirical research demonstrating that, while sometimes women are violent in their intimate relationships, overwhelmingly it is men who are more likely than women to be violent towards their partners.
The nature and consequences of men’s violence are significantly different from women’s violence, in particular: men’s violence is more severe, and is more likely to inflict serious injury, to involve the exercise of coercive control, and to cause fear; women are more likely than men to experience actual or threatened physical or sexual violence or emotional abuse by a partner; women experience much higher levels of violence and emotional abuse by former partners than by current partners; and women are more likely to be killed by current or former male partners than by anyone else. The data also indicate that although more rare, when women do kill their male partners, there is a history of domestic violence by the male partner in more than 70% of cases. Further research explains that the gendered framing of domestic and family violence recognises that this form of violence occurs within the wider context of social and economic disadvantage and inequality experienced by women in relation to men, which may mean that for some women multiple factors may intersect so as to heighten their vulnerability.
Recent research and statistical analyses verify earlier studies. Seventeen per cent of Australian women and 5.5 per cent of Australian men experience physical violence by their cohabiting partner. In 76% of cases where a woman is the victim of homicide, the current or intimate male partner is the perpetrator/offender. Women are also more likely than men to experience emotional abuse by their partner and are more likely to experience anxiety and fear as a result. Where women are the perpetrators of violence against their partners, they are also likely to be the victims of violence or sexual abuse by their partners and to be acting in self-defence, or to be suffering mental or physical ill health as a consequence.
In Australia, legislation, judicial bench books, and government policies have drawn on available research and recognise that while men can be victims of domestic and family violence and sexual assault the overwhelming majority of these behaviours are perpetrated by men against women, and that the most significant risk factor in this context is being a woman. These resources also recognise that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women, women from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, young women and women with physical or mental disabilities are overrepresented as victims.