Campaigners slam decision not to review killing
A MULTI-AGENCY decision not to review the circumstances leading up to the killing of a woman by her husband during the first UK lockdown has been criticised by campaigners.
Ruth Williams, 67, was strangled to death by Anthony Williams, 70, at their home in Cwmbran on March 28 last year, for which he was sentenced last week to five years in prison.
He was cleared of murder, having already pleaded guilty to manslaughter by diminished responsibility, with the judge saying that Williams’ mental state was “severely affected” by depression and anxiety and that there was no evidence of any previous domestic violence.
Torfaen council told the PA news agency that it and partner organisations would not launch a domestic homicide review (DHR) due to the couple’s “very limited involvement with services and an absence of any domestic abuse history”.
In a statement, it said a DHR, required by law to review whether anything about the circumstances of a killing can help prevent future domestic violence for others and improve service responses for victims, was “unlikely” to “reveal multiagency learning or actions to be taken forward”.
But the decision has been criticised by those with experience of the DHR process, including Labour MP Harriet Harman, who said she will write to Home Secretary Priti Patel as well as the council to have it reviewed.
Ms Harman, whose work on the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 led to the setting up of DHRs, said: “If there’s been a domestic homicide, there ought to be a review.
“It’s really important to look at the surrounding circumstances, and whether or not there was evidence that anybody had that there was coercive control and an abusive situation at home.
“We don’t know that until a domestic homicide review undertakes its work. That’s why it needs to happen.”
Frank Mullane, whose sister and nephew were murdered in 2003, sparking his campaign to ensure that DHRs became law, said he found the multiagency decision “exasperating” and has also written to Ms Patel.
Mr Mullane, who has quality-assured more than 800 of the reviews, pointed to statutory guidance which states that DHRs “should probe why there was little or no contact with agencies”.
He said: “We cannot say there’s nothing to learn until we take a look.
“It’s not just about multi-agency learning, it’s about situating the review in the
community, where victims of domestic abuse go first to seek help. We need to put advice, knowledge, information and solutions in the community.
“I don’t know if Mrs Williams suffered domestic abuse in the lead-up to her death, but I do know a DHR should be undertaken. The criteria have been met.”
Jane Monckton Smith, a criminologist specialising in domestic homicide, said the multi-agency decision was “outrageous”. “In a trial, all you really hear is the killer’s perspective on everything, so you don’t actually get the background,” she said. “The only way we’re ever going to learn how this homicide happened is to know what led up to it, and that will not come out in a trial.
“If we don’t learn, we’re not going to stop these homicides happening. That’s already the case. You can’t have a situation where killers are saying it was down to Covid, or they were depressed. The homicide rate has gone up during the restrictions, so we need to learn more.”
Ms Monckton Smith, a former police officer and now professor of public protection at the University of Gloucestershire, said her research into domestic homicides had found there is “always a history to find”.
A spokesman for the Gwent-wide Adult Safeguarding Board and Torfaen Public Service Board said the details of the case and additional multi-agency information were “thoroughly considered” by them between May and August 2020, six months before Williams’ trial began.
They said board agencies including Aneurin Bevan University Health Board, Gwent Police and local authority leads concluded “due to the couple’s very limited involvement with services and an absence of any domestic abuse history, that a review would not take place as it was unlikely it would reveal multi-agency learning or actions to be taken forward”.
The spokesman added: “Domestic abuse remains a priority area for all service providers in Gwent, and we will continue to do all that we can to protect and reassure the vulnerable and those at risk of harm.”
POLICE are appealing for information after three armed men allegedly try to steal man’s dog in Cardiff.
According to officers, one of the men who fled the scene ended up covered in the contents of the victim’s dog poo bag.
As the 30-year-old man walked his two dogs near the Rhymney River three men, one armed with a craft knife, tried to steal his eight-year-old Labrador.
The victim, who suffered facial injuries and concussion, is now recovering at home with his two dogs who are also safe and well.
A member of the public stopped to help and contacted South Wales Police.
The incident happened shortly before 12.45pm on Thursday on the wooded trail that runs between Eastern Avenue and the Rhymney River near Pentwyn.
South Wales Police detectives are appealing for vigilance and information.
It is believed the suspects walked through Pentwyn and Llanrumney before and after the attempted robbery.
Anyone who may have seen the suspects or have either dash-cam or CCTV footage which may have captured them is asked to contact the police.
The suspects are described as follows:
■ Suspect one: white, early 20s, six feet two inches tall, slim build, dark hair with a centre parting, little bit of a beard on his chin which was fair in colour, wearing jeans and a white sweatshirt.
■ Suspect two: white, early to mid20s, five feet 10 inches tall, slim build, fair hair brushed back, wearing a black tracksuit.
■ Suspect three: white, mid to late 20s, five feet 10 inches tall, stocky build.
Detective Constable Kirsty Matthews said: “The victim was extremely brave and it is fortunate that he was not more seriously hurt as he did everything he could to stop the men from taking his dog.
“We appreciate this incident has caused a lot of concern locally, on social media and will no doubt worry all dog owners.
“This is an isolated incident and extensive inquiries are being carried out to identify and arrest those responsible.
“The number of dog thefts being reported to South Wales Police remains very low.
“If you have any information on this incident, please contact us quoting occurrence *066613.”
HUNTING foxes with dogs was outlawed in 2004, and that should have been the end of it. But according to one group of people, it’s far from it.
That group of people is still out there, trying to disrupt what it claims is illegal activity still taking place in Wales.
Hunting group activities are currently suspended as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, but members of the South Wales Hunt Saboteurs say that, in normal times, the issue of hunting foxes with dogs is still rife in many areas of the country, despite it being outlawed through the Hunting Act.
The Hunting Office has said hunts are always in full compliance with the law and accuses activists of wasting police time and resources by interfering with trail hunting activities.
The saboteurs allege that trail hunting, which purports to mimic traditional hunting by allowing an animal-based scent trail to be followed, has been used as “a smokescreen” for illegal activity to take place instead.
The South Wales Hunt Saboteurs group started 25 years ago when smaller groups in Swansea, Cardiff and Newport joined together.
It is made up of people in many different occupations – from social services, carers, teachers and doctors – aged from around 25 to their late 50s.
They perform different roles, including research (those trying to find out where the hunts are going to take place), people who drive the vehicles, social media, and, most integral, the people who physically go out onto the field to interrupt hunts as they happen.
Members say hunts take place twice a week on land where foxes rest through the day, such as scrubland and woodland. They look to position themselves in the best spots to interrupt hunts, and use OS maps to help locate where they are in rural surroundings.
To interrupt hunts, they say they use the same techniques as the huntsmen themselves.
One of the group’s earliest members Sam Jones said: “On a hunt day, on the rare occasion they pretend they are laying a trail, but when the hunt starts the hounds don’t go anywhere near the trail. It is a charade and a smokescreen. The huntsman uses a hunting horn and voice commands. We learn the same techniques.
“If hounds are on the fox, the fox will run zig zag, it does not run in a line. When the hound has the scent, at that point they are susceptible to someone else calling them. We can call them back. But we do so with safety in mind. It’s a massive thing to take control of a pack of hounds but we have to do it.”
Sam described how they believed hunting sometimes worked in Wales.
“A lot of people thought after the hunt ban that hunting as it was was over. People are surprised that it is still going on,” Sam said.
“I would say when the ban first started, hunts were being cautious and taking care to make sure it looked like they were acting within the law.
“I don’t know of any hunts not hunting. It is widespread across Wales, from Chepstow, all the land covered by the outskirts of Swansea, Cardiff, the Vale of Glamorgan, Carmarthenshire.
“Pretty much all of Wales is divided up into hunt countries. You have registered packs, non-registered packs, gun packs and fox destruction packs who keep it going.
“One of the big things is terrier men. The fox knows its territory but if a fox
knows of a hole in the ground, the fox will go underground. It is the terrier men’s job to get the fox out of the ground. They put terriers underground with a locator. Sometimes they don’t use a locator and just put a terrier down to flush the fox out.
“The whole reason you will see terrier men is that they are hunting live quarry. They are generally on quad bikes with metal boxes on the front that contain the terriers.”
Sam also gave an account of the abuse members had received and the injuries sustained through the years.
He said: “There is a lot of verbal abuse. “They try and latch onto characteristics of people to undermine them. The key thing is not to engage with people. We are not there for a debate, we are there to do a job and stop the huntsmen.
“We do have to look after one another. People can lose confidence and become quite anxious. We look after one another to make sure people are not struggling on their own.
“If you’re not used to that level of abuse and hatred being spewed on you because you’re trying to be altruistic it can be quite a shock, especially to the newer members. Sometimes they can be aggressive in your face. I’ve become hardened to it.
“I’ve had cuts, bruises, broken ribs. Generally we have not reported it. My ribs were broken and we did not report it. We have concerns about personal details being leaked to the hunt, so many members are reluctant to give their details.”
Sam described one of the worst encounters the group had witnessed while interrupting wildlife hunting.
“One of the things I saw very early on was a pregnant vixen being hunted and killed. We got to her body and she had died. The hounds had ripped her stomach and her cubs were still alive inside her. One by one the cubs died. That was pretty horrific.
“What I have learnt to do from that was put all those emotions into a mental box and save them for when I was on my own. The hunt does not stop looking for another fox and you have to make sure it does not happen to another fox. Hunting has to come to an end.”
Responding to the claims, a spokeswoman for The Hunting Office said: “The Hunting Office works with all member hunts to ensure compliance with the Hunting Act and there are thousands of trail hunting days carried out in Wales every year without any issues in terms of legality or prosecutions.
“The law is perfectly clear and vindictive allegations made by activists, who attend hunts with the sole purpose of disrupting the trail hunting activities and interfering with the hounds and the trails which have been laid, are simply wasting police time and resources.”