Violence against Women and Girls (VAWG) has been a stated priority for successive UK governments since 2009, when the Labour government launched the ‘Together we can end VAWG’ strategy. Despite increases in custodial sentences, VAWG offences persist. An estimated 1 in 12 women are victims of VAWG-related offences annually.
On 4 June 2025, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner for England and Wales, Dame Nicole Jacobs, and Victims Commissioner Baroness Newlove wrote jointly to Sir Keir Starmer to urge him to make 'bold and ambitious investment' into fighting VAWG. They welcomed Starmer’s 'personal commitment to halving violence against women and girls within a decade' but noted 'funding cuts and scaled back ambition are leading to piecemeal policies'.
The Independent Sentencing Review, chaired by David Gauke, is one of the latest attempts to improve how the criminal justice system handles VAWG. While it commendably highlights VAWG-specific issues and acknowledges low victim confidence in the system, its proposals fail to connect VAWG-related shortcomings with wider systemic pressures, risking this being another example of 'piecemeal policies'.
Improving identification of domestic abuse perpetrators
The review suggests obligating courts to record data identifying domestic abuse perpetrators upon sentencing. Though well-intentioned, this risks duplicating work already done by police and the Crown Prosecution Service, who routinely collect such data.
The real challenge lies in inconsistent data sharing between agencies. Merely imposing new recording duties on courts could add administrative strain without improving outcomes. More useful reforms would streamline inter-agency data sharing, ensuring stakeholders—from police to probation—can access consistent, accurate information, while upholding data protection rights.
Expanding specialist domestic abuse courts
Expanding Specialist Domestic Abuse Courts reflects the value of expertise in handling complex VAWG cases. However, the review does not grapple with the logistical and financial demands of establishing what amounts to a parallel court system.
Such courts require major investment in infrastructure, staff, and training, which may only be available in some geographic areas and not others. The Labour Party’s (seemingly now-abandoned) election proposal for specialist rape courts raised similar concerns: is the answer to systemic underfunding really to create overlapping court systems? A more effective approach might be to enhance the capacity and efficiency of the existing system.
Groups like Standing Together argue specialist courts improve information sharing and risk assessments. But these benefits could be achieved within the current system—via better funding, structured collaboration, and improved training for all criminal justice stakeholders.
Domestic abuse complainants often withdraw from prosecutions or decline to give evidence due to disillusionment with the system. Specialist courts may offer better support, but this reflects a wider issue: complainants, witnesses and suspects across all case types feel neglected. The broader culture of neglect must be addressed to restore faith in the justice system.
Enhancing VAWG training for practitioners
The review’s call for improved VAWG training for practitioners is welcomed. Judges, magistrates, probation officers, and others need to understand trauma, coercive control, and victim experiences to deliver fair, informed outcomes. This training must be aligned with robust sentencing guidelines to ensure consistent case management.
Training also must support the broader sentencing aims of rehabilitation, prevention, and protection. Reflecting the harm caused by VAWG is crucial, but so is preventing reoffending. Any training must ensure that the balance between the two objectives is met fairly.
Resourcing the probation service for VAWG management
The review correctly highlights the central role of the Probation Service in managing VAWG offenders, with electronic monitoring (tagging) at the forefront. While tagging can enhance victim safety, it comes with challenges: social stigma, potential obstacles to reintegration, and frequent technical failures that can lead to false breach alerts and unnecessary arrests.
Offender management reforms must strike a careful balance between protecting victims and rehabilitating offenders. This requires a strong, fully staffed and well-trained probation service, supported by capable third-party contractors. Of course, there must also be investment in modern technologies, but tagging is a blunt and imperfect tool that cannot, in and of itself, solve the prison population crisis.
Compensation for victims of coercive and controlling behaviour
The review adopts a thoughtful stance on compensation in coercive and controlling behaviour cases. Where economic loss is clear—such as when a victim is prevented from working—compensation is more straightforward. But in cases of emotional or psychological abuse, loss is harder to quantify.
While compensation orders are made in criminal cases, they may not always be appropriate for VAWG cases. Offenders could exploit them to maintain control over victims or face reintegration hurdles that affect rehabilitation. The review rightly calls for further exploration of whether compensation in such cases is suitable and how potential issues can be addressed. Alternative routes—such as the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme and civil claims—may be better suited to assess these issues.
Final reflections
The VAWG strategy recognises that offences like domestic abuse and sexual assault should not be viewed in isolation, as they exist on a continuum of gender-based violence. This requires focused, tailored interventions.
However, unless the government addresses deep-rooted issues within the criminal justice system - underfunding, inefficiency, and neglect - no VAWG-specific reforms will be sufficient. Without broader reform, simply applying a VAWG-labelled sticking plaster over systemic cracks will continue to fail victims, suspects, and society alike.
Sophie Tang is an associate in the criminal litigation team at Kingsley Napley LLP
