Farah Nazeer, Chief Executive of Women’s Aid, has voiced profound disappointment regarding a recent parliamentary evidence session intended to inform and shape the Courts and Tribunals Bill. Nazeer highlighted a critical failure to adopt a trauma-informed approach, leading to survivors of domestic abuse feeling disheartened and, in some instances, retraumatised, despite their invaluable presence and testimony. Her comments underscore a persistent concern within the justice sector about the treatment of vulnerable witnesses and the urgent need for specialist training for all individuals engaging with survivors in legislative and judicial processes.
Background to the Courts and Tribunals Bill and Evidence Sessions
The Courts and Tribunals Bill represents a significant legislative undertaking aimed at modernising and streamlining the justice system. While specific details of the bill may vary as it progresses through Parliament, such legislation typically seeks to enhance efficiency, adapt to technological advancements, and ensure the effective administration of justice across various legal domains, including civil, family, and criminal courts, as well as tribunals. Parliamentary evidence sessions are a crucial component of the legislative process, serving as a mechanism for select committees to gather expert testimony, stakeholder perspectives, and firsthand accounts from those directly affected by proposed laws. This information is vital for scrutinising the bill’s provisions, identifying potential impacts, and informing amendments to ensure the legislation is robust, equitable, and fit for purpose.
For a bill impacting the justice system, particularly one that may influence how cases involving vulnerable individuals are handled, receiving testimony from survivors of domestic abuse is not merely beneficial but essential. Their lived experiences offer unparalleled insight into the practical realities, challenges, and systemic failings that often elude legal theory or administrative planning. Such testimony can illuminate critical areas where the system falls short, guiding parliamentarians toward creating legislation that genuinely protects and empowers those it seeks to serve. However, the very nature of these testimonies—often recounting deeply traumatic events—demands an environment of utmost care, sensitivity, and respect.
Farah Nazeer’s Observations and Concerns
Nazeer’s critique stems from her direct observation of an evidence session where survivors were present, offering their personal accounts. While acknowledging the fundamental importance of robust questioning and evidence gathering in legislative processes, she asserted that the specific context of receiving testimony from survivors of domestic abuse necessitates a fundamentally different, trauma-informed approach. Her disappointment was palpable: "I was left feeling disappointed on behalf of survivors," she stated, lamenting that the sessions "did not consistently achieve these standards of care, leaving survivors feeling disheartened and in some cases, retraumatised."
The core of Nazeer’s concern lies in the apparent disconnect between the stated objective of informing legislation and the actual experience of those providing the most crucial insights. For survivors, recounting experiences of abuse can be profoundly re-traumatising, especially if the environment lacks empathy, understanding, or appropriate safeguards. The process itself, designed to extract information, can inadvertently replicate dynamics of power and control that mirror the abuse they have suffered, if not handled with extreme caution. This can manifest in various ways, from insensitive questioning to a lack of emotional support or adequate breaks, creating an intimidating rather than empowering atmosphere.
The Indispensable Value of Survivor Voices and the Call for Specialist Training
Women’s Aid, under Nazeer’s leadership, consistently champions the principle that "survivor voices and experiences are absolutely essential if we are to create a criminal justice system that is survivor-centred and delivers the justice it promises." This principle is not merely aspirational; it is a practical necessity. Without a deep understanding of how domestic abuse impacts individuals and families, and how the justice system currently interacts with these realities, legislation risks being theoretical and ineffective.
Nazeer’s urgent call is for all parliamentarians and indeed, anyone who works with or engages with survivors, to "receive specialist training, to understand the impact that crimes like domestic abuse have on women and children, and how discussing these experiences can make them feel." This training, she argues, should equip individuals with the knowledge and skills to approach survivors with "care, compassion and above all, respect." Such training would cover topics like the neurobiology of trauma, its impact on memory and communication, techniques for empathetic listening, avoiding leading or accusatory questions, and creating a physically and psychologically safe environment. The absence of such specialised knowledge can inadvertently lead to practices that, while perhaps not intentionally malicious, cause significant harm. "Survivor voices are invaluable and must be treated with the care and respect that their bravery deserves," Nazeer concluded, emphasising the profound courage required for survivors to share their stories in public forums.
The Broader Context: Trauma in the Justice System
Nazeer’s comments resonate within a broader national and international discourse on the treatment of vulnerable witnesses in legal settings. Research consistently demonstrates that interactions with the criminal justice system can significantly impact a survivor’s mental health and willingness to pursue justice. A 2022 report by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) highlighted that police responses to domestic abuse still require significant improvement, often failing to identify vulnerability or provide adequate support. Similar concerns have been raised about the courts, where delays, repeated cross-examination, and a lack of understanding of coercive control can exacerbate trauma.
Statistics on domestic abuse in the UK underscore the scale of the challenge. According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), an estimated 2.4 million adults aged 16 to 74 experienced domestic abuse in England and Wales in the year ending March 2023. Women are disproportionately affected, with 1.7 million women experiencing domestic abuse compared with 721,000 men in the same period. The impact extends beyond physical harm, encompassing psychological, emotional, financial, and sexual abuse, often leading to complex trauma, anxiety, depression, and PTSD. When survivors come forward, whether to police, support services, or parliamentary committees, they carry the weight of these experiences. The justice system’s ability to respond effectively hinges on recognising and accommodating this trauma.
Moreover, the attrition rate for domestic abuse cases in the criminal justice system remains a significant concern. Many cases never reach court, and of those that do, a considerable number result in non-conviction. Factors contributing to this include victims withdrawing cooperation—often due to fear, re-traumatisation by the process itself, or a loss of faith in the system. A truly survivor-centred approach aims to reverse this trend by building trust and ensuring that the pursuit of justice does not come at an unbearable personal cost.
Chronology of Legislative Efforts and Survivor Advocacy
The current parliamentary scrutiny of the Courts and Tribunals Bill follows a series of significant legislative and policy developments aimed at improving the response to domestic abuse. The landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021, for instance, introduced a statutory definition of domestic abuse, established the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, and brought in new protections for victims. However, the implementation of this Act and its practical impact on survivors’ experiences within the justice system remain subjects of ongoing evaluation and advocacy.
Before the 2021 Act, various reviews and reports, such as the Ministry of Justice’s ‘Safety of Victims in the Family Court’ review (2020), had already highlighted serious issues regarding the treatment of victims and children in family court proceedings, including instances where perpetrators used the court system to continue abuse. These reports consistently called for enhanced training for judges, legal professionals, and court staff on domestic abuse and coercive control. The current evidence session for the Courts and Tribunals Bill falls within this trajectory of continuous efforts to refine and strengthen legal frameworks. Farah Nazeer’s intervention highlights that despite these efforts, a fundamental gap persists in the practical application of trauma-informed principles at critical junctures of the legislative process itself.
Potential Responses and Broader Implications
While specific official responses to Nazeer’s comments were not immediately detailed, parliamentary committees and the Ministry of Justice typically acknowledge the importance of victim welfare. It is reasonable to infer that such strong criticism from a prominent advocacy group like Women’s Aid would prompt an internal review of the committee’s procedures or at least initiate a discussion about how evidence sessions involving vulnerable witnesses are conducted. The Ministry of Justice, which oversees the court system, consistently states its commitment to ensuring a fair and supportive environment for all participants, especially those who have experienced trauma.
Other survivor advocacy groups, such as Refuge, SafeLives, and the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, would likely echo Women’s Aid’s concerns. These organisations collectively advocate for systemic changes that prioritise victim safety and well-being, including enhanced training across the entire justice sector, from police officers and prosecutors to judges and parliamentary staff. Legal professional bodies and elements within the judiciary have also increasingly recognised the need for specialist training, acknowledging that traditional legal adversarial approaches can be counterproductive when dealing with trauma survivors.
The implications of Nazeer’s intervention are far-reaching. For the Courts and Tribunals Bill itself, this feedback could lead to amendments or specific guidance being incorporated into the legislation or its accompanying policies, mandating trauma-informed practices in certain judicial or quasi-judicial settings. More broadly, it reinforces the ongoing challenge of embedding specialist understanding into every layer of policy-making and judicial administration. Failure to address these concerns risks not only undermining the effectiveness of new legislation but also eroding public trust in the justice system, particularly among those it is designed to protect. If survivors feel further victimised by the very process intended to help them, it creates a powerful deterrent for others considering coming forward, perpetuating cycles of abuse and impunity.
Ultimately, Farah Nazeer’s comments serve as a critical reminder that while legislative intent to improve justice is commendable, its true measure lies in its compassionate and effective implementation. Creating a justice system that truly serves survivors requires not just new laws, but a profound cultural shift, underpinned by mandatory, specialist trauma-informed training for every individual involved in their journey through the legal and legislative landscape. This is essential not only to prevent re-traumatisation but to genuinely deliver the justice and safety that survivors so bravely seek.
