Dishonour abuse: CPS and police failures that create layers of harm

Dishonour abuse is not a “relationship problem”. It is a safeguarding emergency. Survivors describe surveillance, stalking, threats, punishment and control, often involving more than one family member. In this article, I explain dishonour abuse CPS and police failures, and I set out what must change so the system protects survivors instead of compounding harm.

Freedom Charity uses the term dishonour abuse because perpetrators use “dishonour” as a weapon to control and punish. For our definition and safeguarding framework, read:
https://freedomcharity.org.uk/dishonour-abuse/

What dishonour abuse looks like in real life

Dishonour abuse often involves collective control. For example, one relative may threaten, another may monitor, and others may report back. As a result, a survivor can feel trapped even when one person appears “calm”.

Survivors often describe:

• Being watched, followed, or tracked

• Being pressured through relatives, community contacts, or friends

• Being threatened with forced travel or confinement

• Being punished for seeking education, choosing friends, or asking for help

If forced marriage is part of the risk, read:
https://freedomcharity.org.uk/forced-marriage/

Dishonour abuse and police failures at first contact

The first police response often decides whether a survivor stays safe. However, officers sometimes treat dishonour abuse as a “family dispute” or a “private matter”. When that happens, perpetrators learn that control carries little consequence. Meanwhile, survivors learn that disclosure brings risk rather than protection.

Police responses often go wrong when officers:

• Treat controlling relatives as concerned witnesses, not suspects

• Miss stalking and surveillance as high-risk warning signs

• Suggest mediation or family meetings despite clear fear and coercion

• Ignore the fact that several perpetrators can act together

• Focus on visible injury and overlook control, threats and confinement

Police guidance exists for a reason. Use it. See the College of Policing guidance on honour-based abuse:
https://www.college.policing.police.uk/app/major-investigation-and-public-protection/honour-based-abuse

Also, where stalking forms part of the pattern, see:
https://www.college.policing.police.uk/app/stalking-and-harassment

The second layer of harm: weak investigation and missed evidence

Dishonour abuse rarely happens once. Instead, it builds over time. Therefore, police must investigate patterns, not isolated incidents. When officers collect only “the latest argument”, the case file loses the true risk story.

Investigators should gather evidence that shows the pattern, such as:

• Call logs, messages and screenshots that show harassment or monitoring

• Threats made by several people, not only one person

• Evidence of isolation, restriction, or financial control

• Travel risk signs, including pressure to surrender documents

• Attempts to intimidate schools, employers, friends, or professionals

• Proof of reporting-back networks and community surveillance

If officers miss that evidence early, the case weakens later. Consequently, survivors face a predictable cycle of dishonour abuse CPS and police failures.

CPS decision-making and dishonour abuse evidential failures

The CPS can only act on the evidence in the file. So, when the file presents fragmented incidents, the charging decision often follows that fragmentation. As a result, the system can miss coercive control as a sustained course of conduct.

See CPS information on honour-based abuse and forced marriage:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/honour-based-abuse-and-forced-marriage

See CPS legal guidance on controlling or coercive behaviour:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/controlling-or-coercive-behaviour-intimate-or-family-relationship

Prosecutors and investigators should work together to show:

• Escalation over time

• Collective threats and group pressure

• The survivor’s fear and lack of real choice

• The link between control, punishment, and risk of serious harm

When the file tells that full story, the criminality becomes clear. In contrast, when the file reduces the abuse to “arguments”, the case becomes easier to challenge.

Dishonour abuse is safeguarding, not “culture”

Professionals sometimes hesitate because they fear being labelled insensitive. However, that hesitation can put lives at risk. Dishonour abuse is not culture. It is child abuse and domestic abuse.

The Domestic Abuse Statutory Guidance reinforces the seriousness of domestic abuse, including coercive control:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/domestic-abuse-statutory-guidance

Therefore, agencies must prioritise safety planning, not reconciliation. They must also treat group perpetration as a risk multiplier, not a complication to minimise.

What good practice looks like

Good practice is simple, direct, and survivor-led. In particular, it means:

• Name and record dishonour abuse clearly at first disclosure

• Investigate the pattern and the network, not one event

• Collect evidence that shows surveillance, threats and escalation

• Act fast on forced travel risk and document control

• Plan safe contact and safe exits, especially where relatives try to “retrieve” the survivor

• Join up police, safeguarding and prosecution so the case does not collapse

If you want Freedom Charity’s prevention work with communities, including work with boys, see:
https://freedomcharity.org.uk/not-in-my-name-campaign/

Why this matters now

Dishonour abuse thrives when professionals hesitate. Consequently, every missed opportunity can increase danger. Survivors can face escalating control, confinement, forced travel, or severe violence.

That is why we must confront dishonour abuse CPS and police failures as a public protection issue, not a niche topic.

Conclusion

Dishonour abuse creates layers of harm. The first layer is the abuse. The next layers come from institutional responses: minimisation, weak investigation, and charging decisions built on incomplete files. Therefore, the system must recognise risk early, investigate patterns, and prosecute with safeguarding at the centre. Only then will survivors receive protection that matches the reality they face.

For Freedom Charity safeguarding information, see:
https://freedomcharity.org.uk/dishonour-abuse/

By Aneeta Prem MBE, Founder of Freedom Charity