Domestic Abuse: Sentencing, Release and Risk. A Survivor perspective
- Dr Kelly Bracewell
- Apr 7
- 5 min read
Updated: May 7
This article recounts the victim/survivor perspective of the criminal justice system once a case of domestic abuse reaches court. I share this story because it represents a stark reality for many survivors who courageously seek to obtain justice for themselves and their loved ones.
This story is all too familiar because it captures a dichotomy that many survivors and supporters recognise: the gap between what “justice” sounds like and what it feels like. It also raises a wider dilemma whereby if the system’s outcome leaves the victim needing to move house or fearing homicide, what is the sentence actually achieving?
“I sat in a Crown Court courtroom with a friend. She had done what we (survivors) are repeatedly asked to do: leave, report, provide evidence, and show up. The man who abused her had pleaded guilty. There was CCTV evidence of violent attacks and photographs documenting another incident.
She was heavily pregnant during at least one assault. The judge described the violence in the highest category. And yet, when the sentence was handed down, my friend left court feeling less safe than when she walked in.”
Sentencing
The sentencing process in the Crown Court can feel confusing and unclear for survivors. What is announced in court often differs from the actual time an offender will spend in custody. This is because several parts of the sentencing and release system work together, and these are not always explained in straightforward terms when survivors most need clarity.
When someone is convicted of multiple offences, the court does not simply add all the sentences together. Instead, judges apply the ‘totality principle’, ensuring the overall sentence is fair and proportionate. This means sentences may run at the same time (concurrent) or one after another (consecutive). In cases involving multiple similar offences, particularly against the same victim, courts will often order the sentences to run concurrently.
For victims/survivors, this can feel deeply unjust. Repeated abuse is experienced as a pattern of harm, often over years. But the system can appear to treat it as a single problem rather than recognising the cumulative impact. While the law aims for proportionality, many victims/survivors feel their lived experience is minimised or ignored.
A sentence can also be reduced if the defendant pleads guilty. Under sentencing guidelines, someone who pleads guilty at the first opportunity will usually receive up to a one‑third reduction in their sentence, with smaller reductions if the plea comes later. For victims/survivors, this feels like a reward for the perpetrator, particularly where there is clear evidence and little choice but to plead guilty, as in the case above. This is especially hard to accept when pre‑sentence reports show no remorse, ongoing victim blaming, or a lack of insight/care into the harm caused to the victim and other affected people.
Time already spent in custody can reduce a sentence. If someone has been held on remand before sentencing, that time is usually credited towards the sentence. Time spent on bail does not normally count, although in limited circumstances—such as a qualifying electronically monitored curfew—some credit may be given. As a result, by the time the sentence is handed down, a significant part of the prison term may already have been served. For victims/survivors who have waited months for the case to reach court, this can be shocking and distressing. This may be even more harrowing when that waiting period has involved continued fear, disruption, harassment, or intimidation by the perpetrator or people connected to them.
In principle, the law recognises domestic abuse as a pattern of behaviour, not a one-off incident, and acknowledges that children can be victims in their own right. In practice, however, offences are often broken down into separate charges and sentenced together. For survivors, this can create a sense that years of abuse—especially during pregnancy or in front of children—have not been fully recognised in the outcome.
Courts may put protective measures in place after sentencing, but these only work if they are enforced, breaches are taken seriously, and victims kept informed and supported (e.g., Domestic Violence Protection Orders).
But none of this removes the injustice: why should the survivor be the one who has to relocate, reorganise childcare, and rebuild a life? Domestic abuse is not rare or private
Domestic abuse is often hidden and under‑reported. The Crime Survey for England and Wales (ONS, year ending March 2025) shows that:
7.8% of adults (around 3.8 million people) experienced domestic abuse in the last year.
25.8% have experienced domestic abuse since age 16 (approx. 12.5 million people).
Police recorded over 1.35 million domestic abuse‑related incidents and crimes in the same period.
There were 111 domestic homicides recorded in England and Wales, including 75 female victims, and 67 victims killed by a partner or ex‑partner (ONS, 2025).
We also know that the risk of homicide increases when a woman tries to leave the home (Campbell et al., 2003). It’s this context in which victims/survivors make decisions about whether it is safe to report, safe to leave, or safe to stay where they live. It is realistic to say that in many cases such dilemmas are fraught with real threats and risk for the survivor and where the stakes may be the highest imaginable. So, what needs to change?
We could simply say “longer sentences”. But sentencing, release policy, probation capacity, protective orders, and enforcement all interact. We need a system that:
Treats repeated domestic abuse as cumulative harm, not disconnected episodes.
Explains sentencing and release in plain language at court, so victims can safety‑plan with real timelines.
Builds victim safety into release and licence conditions, with meaningful enforcement and support.
Doesn’t shift the burden of safety onto the victim, when national data makes clear the risks include serious violence and domestic homicide.
Because when a survivor hears ‘highest category’ violence and then watches the outcome as “time served + early release”, the message received is not deterrence. It’s: "you were brave enough to report, but now you must carry the risk"
If you or someone you support is in this situation, consider the following:
Victims’ Code: victims have rights to information and support, and the right to make a Victim Personal Statement, which is considered at sentencing.
Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme: if a Crown Court sentence seems unreasonably low, it may be possible to ask the Attorney General’s Office to review it. But the deadline is strict (28 days from sentencing).
This isn’t legal advice, and not every offence is eligible for review, but many victims never hear about this scheme until the deadline has passed.
Final thoughts
It’s really important that something changes. It’s not good enough that women go through the whole ordeal and are retraumatised by the process—the nightmares, the anxiety, moving house, changing their entire lives, their children’s schools, and losing contact with friends when they have to move far away and can’t tell anyone where they are—only for the perpetrator to walk out of court a free man, or serve just a few months in prison. They return to their friends and family and carry on with the same life they had before, while the victim’s life—and the lives of their children—is left completely changed, often forever.
Gemma is an Advisor for Voice of Survivors Lived Experience
Dr Kelly Bracewell is a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Lancashire. She advises for the Connect Centre for International Research on New Approaches to Prevent Violence and Harm
Comments