A year on from Labour’s promise to tackle violence against women and girls, survivors are still being failed by the system. Gaps in policy, funding and legal reform continue to put lives at risk.
As I sit with my best friend, her with a bruised cheekbone, me with a stammer, created through years of terror and uncertainty, we reminisce about how we got here and how the system had failed to catch us.
I had taken my abuser to court and had been devastated by the resounding lack of protection. For a stalking with intent of violence charge – an offence which carries prison time of up to five years – he was ordered to pay a measly £300. £150 of which were court fees. I was granted no protection order, and the gravity of the emotional terrorism I had endured was ignored.
She had decided to withdraw charges altogether on account of her children. She felt that family court would cause more emotional damage to both her and them. Her partner had also created a financial dependency so cavernous that she would never be able to leave. Besides, she says, “it’s better the devil you know”.
If your eyes lit up at the sight of Labour promising to tackle violence against girls in their 2024 manifesto, then, like me, you are probably aware of the glaring gaps in their promises.
Labour have proposed to introduce three attractive ideas which tackle key themes in domestic violence: presumption of contact, specialist courts, and intensive rehabilitative orders rather than custodial time.
Presumption of contact
Abolishing the presumption of contact would be a landmark change. Until now, perpetrators have routinely been granted access to their children based on the outdated belief that involvement from both parents is always in a child’s best interest. This has repeatedly placed survivors and their children in danger.
One devastating case was raised in the House of Commons: Claire Throssell’s ex-partner was granted weekly unsupervised access to their children. He went on to murder them. Sadly, this is not a rare occurrence. Between 1994 and 2015, 48 children were killed by their fathers during contact arrangements – often despite known histories of abuse. Another example is MP Kate Kniveton, whose ex-husband was granted contact with their child despite serious abuse allegations and evidence of rape. She was even ordered to pay half of his contract fees.
Labour has acknowledged these fatal flaws and promised to reform the family courts and review the presumption of contact to create child-centred policies. Yet, by mid-2025, no legislation has been passed. Despite sustained pressure from campaigners and survivors, progress remains painfully slow, turning promises into little more than political noise.
Specialist courts
The same pattern may follow for specialist domestic abuse courts. Labour has announced a pilot scheme for courts designed specifically to handle cases of domestic violence, sexual abuse, and rape, promising faster outcomes and better-trained staff. But victims cannot afford to wait. Every delay adds to their suffering.
A gap in policy, which I champion as key for keeping victims safe, is a standalone offence for post-separation harassment. Post-separation harassment is the nightmare after the nightmare. It often involves stalking, threats to the victim or their family, threats of suicide, escalating violence and psychological tactics. Once the abuser feels they’ve lost control, the abuse can intensify–to regain power or to kill. 77% of domestic homicides occur after separation, and there is a 75% increase in abuse tactics used.
In my case, my abuser began with manipulation and love bombing. Then I was stalked. Relentlessly. Both online and in person for two years. There is no current law or offence for post-separation harassment. Instead, other charges are applied, which often water down the extent of the harassment or don’t strictly cover it. This results in a lack of reports or prosecutions. A new law and resources allocated to support those surrounding this would be a catch net for victims. Keeping them safe at the most threatening time, once they have done the bravest and hardest thing of all – leaving. It would also highlight to the public the real extent of abuse – how it isn’t over just because you leave. This could challenge the harmful narrative and answer the question that fills me with rage: ‘Why didn’t you just leave?’.
Another barrier to victims leaving is the often-forgotten economic abuse. It may tether them to their abuser through fear or dependence, like in the case of my best friend, who has never worked. Therefore, she does not have her own bank account or name on the mortgage. She spent two years on the council waiting list to get out with her children. This was two more years of entrenched dependency that rendered her mentally unable to leave. The reality that faced her was an unstable and frightening one.
Money is an unrecognised and silent weapon that abusers use to maintain power. Its main purpose is to create dependence, but it can be in the form of curating debt in a partner’s name, controlling benefits and bank accounts and statements such as ‘I pay for everything, you owe me,’ or ‘you have nothing without me.’ Imagine a day where you choose homelessness to gain safety, just to be denied housing by up to 40 estate agents because they don’t accept your emergency benefits. This all-too-heavy hidden cost of leaving is ignored both in public discourse and in law. Again, there is no standalone recognition of financial abuse and its impact within the criminal justice system. If Labour wants to tackle violence against women and girls, it must attack every barrier to leaving aggressively.
Intensive rehabilitative orders
Labour’s big push is to expand community-based rehabilitative programmes, aka the Drive Project. A decision which frankly induces panic – if he’s not in prison, then he can still kill. He can still have access to, harass, stalk and control. While the statistics look great on paper (or on a website), there has been no clarification on victim safety so far. The project mentions the use of protection orders, but these are substandard at best, combined with temporary housing for perpetrators. It also begs the question: how will they deem the perpetrator rehabilitated?
They may decide to only apply community programmes to perpetrators sentenced for coercive control; however, that would only further minimise its brutal effects. It is telling victims that their type of abuse wasn’t abusive enough to warrant their safety. While Labour is correct in assuming that prison time does not prevent or stop domestic violence, it is hard to compare community sentencing and prison, as there are no official statistics for domestic abuse-related crime, as it does not exist as a standalone offence. It will prevent a domestic homicide or a suicide.
This push for rehabilitative practice, over prison sentencing, rides on the tail end of the early release of a number of prisoners. Essentially, if you don’t know, prisons are incredibly overpopulated, so the government is desperately seeking to address this issue. How they decided to do it, is under much scrutiny from the domestic violence world. You see, originally they were believed to have been releasing non-violent offenders – individuals who were serving short sentences and were simply taking up space where they could be seen within the community (in theory, because surprise surprise, probation and community services are also staggeringly overworked and struggling. Case loads are reaching record heights, but sure, let’s throw a few more on there.) The government had promised not to release anyone who was serving a sentence for a violent crime, particularly those who were convicted of domestic violence-related offences. But of course, they did release them. Yet another confusing decision made by a government sworn to protect us. Even more incredulously and alarmingly, not all victims were notified.
Ultimately, this government is full of promise. They’ve been the first to explicitly prioritise tackling violence against women and girls–mentioning it in their manifesto and publicly discussing potential legal and policy reforms. But so far, it’s all bark and no bite. Everything remains in development: an idea, a theory, a possible change. And yet, they’ve committed the same failing as their predecessors. They have not truly listened to victims. They’ve maintained a top-down approach, rather than building a collaborative model that centres survivors, frontline workers, and advocates alongside government decision-makers. In doing so, they’ve missed crucial opportunities to craft a policy that is inclusive of all victims of intimate partner and domestic violence.
I want to celebrate movement in the right direction – I truly do. Acknowledging the epidemic of gendered violence matters. But we are still trapped in an archaic, bureaucratic system where progress is choked by endless meetings, reviews, and red tape. We are battling a system that was never built for us. And right now, the gaps in their promises are still wide enough to fall through.
Meanwhile, frontline services remain heavily underfunded. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner recently highlighted a shortfall of at least £238 million per year in refuge and community-based support. Specialist services, including those for Black and minoritised women, LGBTQ+ and disabled victims, are most at risk.
For migrant victims, the risk is even greater. Despite years of campaigning, the government continues to share data between police and immigration enforcement, making undocumented victims afraid and unable to receive support. The Step Up Migrant Women campaign has documented dozens of cases where survivors faced detention or deportation after seeking help. Something which goes against the agenda entirely. Without a separation between support services and immigration control, the message remains that only some victims are worthy of protection.
So what have they actually done that’s positive so far?
- Heavier rollout of Domestic violence protection orders (DVPO’s)
- Embedding of specialist 999 call handlers
But what would real change look like?
- Reforming the family courts to prioritise safety.
- Recognising post-separation and financial abuse
- Ensuring early training for all professionals – from health visitors to judges – to understand the full pattern of abuse.
- Specialist streamlined courts for victims
- Fully funding refuges and specialist support services.
- Creating a barrier between support services and immigration enforcement.
- Funding, funding, funding, FUNDING
Labour has a real chance to show they truly care about tackling violence against women and girls. But so far, their silence on these issues speaks volumes. Until they centre victims (all victims) in their policies, too many people will continue to be failed by the very systems meant to protect them. And for survivors like me, my friend, Claire Throssel and Kate Kniveton and thousands of other victims, those failures are not good enough.
