Charnwood Borough Council, R (on application) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Section 9 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 deliberately adopts an open-textured test. A death may appear to have resulted from violence, abuse or neglect where the information objectively supports that appearance, even though the evidential threshold is below the balance of probabilities.

The relevant conduct need not be the sole or primary cause. A material or sufficient contribution is enough. Neglect bears its natural, ordinary meaning and may arise from a single incident. A domestic homicide review is a safeguarding and learning process, not a criminal or coronial determination. A coroner’s finding of accidental death does not prevent a review.

Charnwood Borough Council, acting as lead authority for its Community Safety Partnership, challenged a direction by the Secretary of State for the Home Department requiring it to establish a domestic homicide review following the accidental death of CB.

CB had suffered fatal injuries after repeatedly falling down stairs while intoxicated. Her partner, M, had helped her to bed but had not obtained medical assistance. There was also evidence of previous domestic abuse, coercive and controlling behaviour, and CB’s intention to leave the relationship.

The Council argued that the statutory causal threshold was not met, that the Minister had relied on impermissible reasons, and that the decision was irrational. The central issue was whether CB’s death had, or appeared to have, resulted from violence, abuse or neglect by M for the purposes of section 9(1).

1. The claim was dismissed. The Council was required to establish the domestic homicide review.
2. Section 9(1) imposes an objective appearance test. The evidential threshold is below the balance of probabilities. The appearance is assessed on the information available to the decision-maker, including reasonable inferences from gaps in that information.
3. There must be a causal connection between the violence, abuse or neglect and the death. However, the relevant conduct need not be the primary or sole cause. A material or sufficient contribution is enough.
4. “Neglect” has its natural and ordinary meaning: failing to give sufficient care or attention to a person or thing. It is not necessary to establish gross negligence manslaughter, and a single incident may constitute neglect.
5. The Minister was entitled to conclude that CB’s death appeared to have resulted from M’s neglect. CB was vulnerable, had repeatedly fallen down stairs and sustained fatal injuries, while M failed to obtain help. The background evidence of domestic abuse and CB’s intention to leave the relationship reinforced that conclusion.
6. The coroner’s finding of accidental death and the police conclusion that there was no criminal activity were not determinative. A domestic homicide review examines safeguarding and agency learning; it does not determine criminal culpability or re-run the coronial process.
7. The post-action protocol response did not impermissibly substitute new reasons. It provided a more precise explanation of reasons implicit in the original decision. The Minister was not under a statutory duty to give reasons, and the additional explanation did not contradict the original decision.