Domestic/Family Violence Death Reviews (D/FVDRs) have been established in a number of high-income countries since 1990 as a mechanism to inform prevention-focused interventions to reduce domestic/family violence. D/FVDRs differ in their structure, governance, case identification processes and inclusion criteria, review measures, and outputs. Outside of the United States, the extent of heterogeneity across and within countries has not been explored. This study comprised an international comparison of D/FVDRs and their core elements to inform the establishment of D/FVDRs in other developed countries, and potentially low- and middle-income countries where violence is a leading cause of death. Such a review is also a necessary foundation for any future evaluation D/FVDRs. The review identified 71 jurisdictions where a D/FVDRs had been established in the past two decades, 25 of which met the inclusion criteria. All D/FVDRs examined stated a reduction in deaths as a goal of the review process; however, none reported an actual reduction. The focus of the D/FVDRs examined was on intimate partner homicides; however, more recently established D/FVDRs include other familial relationships. Almost one third of the D/FVDRs examined reported changes to the domestic/family system that occurred as a result of recommendations made from the review process. While similar in many ways, D/FVDRs differ along a number of important dimensions that make it difficult to identify best practices for jurisdictions considering the establishment of such an initiative. To share knowledge, existing networks should be expanded nationally and internationally to include jurisdictions that may be considering this initiative.

No abstract

Given the case series nature of the study design, a causal relationship between bed-sharing and infant death could not be inferred. However the fact that nearly half of all sleep-related deaths occurred in the context of bed-sharing, provides strong support for the need to undertake definitive analytic studies in Australia so that evidence-based advice can be provided to families regarding the safety of bed-sharing practices.

Abstract. Notwithstanding that confessions are considered the “Queen of evidence,” how judges actually weigh suspects’ statements in reaching their decision remains relatively unknown. This study sought to examine how Belgian judges determine the evidential value of a suspect’s statement, specifically how they evaluate the statement’s: (a) admissibility and validity and (b) interaction with other pieces of evidence. To shed light on this legal decision-making process, 100 Belgian burglary case files were examined, and semi-structured interviews were undertaken with ten Belgian judges. The findings suggest that: the judge’s evaluation of a suspect’s statement differs depending on the outcome of the statement; how a statement is obtained does not appear to be an essential aspect of evidence evaluation; judges expend more effort to falsify denials than confessions; and only when they fail to falsify the denial is an acquittal granted.

In 2016, Belgium introduced legislation mandating legal assistance for juvenile suspects. However, legal assistance can only serve as an effective procedural safeguard if it is provided appropriately. The current study examined how lawyers in Belgium fulfil this role in practice. Seventeen video-recorded police interviews of juvenile suspects were observed. The juveniles were aged between 12 and 17 years, and were suspected of various less serious, volume crimes. The findings of this study show that the ‘law in action’ does not always reflect the ‘law in the books’. The mere presence of a lawyer is insufficient: it is necessary for them to actively engage. Although police interviewers typically adopt an information-gathering approach, some interviews do require the lawyer’s intervention to protect the juvenile’s interests. Moreover, lawyers often restrict themselves to ‘legal’ assistance and offer limited (emotional) support. Because there is no ‘appropriate adult’ regime in Belgium, lawyers could take up this double role. The information-gathering approach also seems to enhance cooperation between lawyer and interviewer, resulting in a joint search for the truth in which neither adopts an antagonistic role when interviews are conducted properly.