The potential and limitations of domestic homicide review: a response to Hope et al. (2021)

This article responds to an article by Hope et al. (2021), in which they reported on an analysis of 22 Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHRs) conducted in England and Wales into the domestic-abuse related deaths of men. While the analysis of DHRs individually and in aggregate is an important part of the process of learning from these tragedies, in this response I set out my concerns relating to both the use of DHRs by Hope et al. and also their findings. I highlight the absence of engagement with the literature around DHRs and/or the wider international family of Domestic Violence Fatality Review (DVFRs), as well as the decision to situate the study design and analysis of these deaths without reference to, or consideration of, the broader context of domestic homicide as a phenomenon. I also argue there is a lacuna in the findings, specifically as to the evidence of (alleged) domestic abuse by many of the men whose deaths were examined by these DHRs, the implications of which are overlooked. I conclude by emphasizing the potential learning from research into DHRs, in this case relating to the domestic abuse-related deaths of men, but also the need to recognize complexity in this endeavor.