Angela · Prevention of Future Deaths report

The family requested me to refer to the deceased as Angela. I will reflect that in this report. I conducted an inquest into the death of Angela Mittal which concluded on 26th of July 2024.

The conclusion of the jury was as follows:
Angela was unlawfully killed. The following Thames Valley Police findings have been admitted:

a. The officers who spoke to Angela on 29th of November 2018 did not recognise that she was reporting the crime of coercive control.
b. The officers who spoke to Angela on 29th of November 2018 did not record the crimes she reported, either of assault or coercive control.
c. The officers who spoke to Angela on 29th of November 2018 accepted that the risk grading on the DOM-5 risk assessment form should have been medium rather than standard.
d. The senior officer who saw Angela on 29th November 2018 accepted that he did not fully review the DOM-5 risk assessment form before signing it.
e. The officers who spoke to Angela on 29th November 2018 did not take information available to them (on the command and control system used then, from a call Angela had made to the police earlier that morning) into account in their assessment of risk. This was despite the call handler identifying domestic violence and coercive control in the course of that 16 minute telephone call.
f. The officers who spoke to Angela on 29th November 2018 did not investigate the crimes Angela reported to them that day.

Based on all the evidence heard in court, we the jury conclude that the admitted failings of Thames Valley Police, on the balance of probabilities, did not contribute to Angela’s death.

Angela was murdered at her home address by her husband on 26th of December 2018. She was 41 years old at the time of her death.

We heard in evidence that Angela had spoken to Thames Valley Police by telephone and in person on the 29th of November 2018. She reported an allegation of assault around a month prior to that, and also many of the elements of coercive control. She also reported an assault on her young child to the call handler, but this was not recorded as a crime, nor handed over to the police officers who saw her that day.

Because of the involvement of a child in the family home, a referral was made to the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub within Wokingham Borough Council Children’s Services. A decision was made to carry out a Child and Family Assessment under Section 17 of the Children Act of 1989.

Angela had moved out of the marital home whilst she was in contact with the social worker at Wokingham Borough Council. Although she had discussed the possibility of returning to the marital home, she did not tell the social worker of a definite plan to do so.

Tragically, and against her family’s advice, Angela returned home on the evening of 25th of December 2018. Her husband rang Thames Valley Police the following morning to tell them that he had murdered his wife.

Before this inquest took place, a criminal trial and a domestic homicide review had been undertaken. It is important to acknowledge, in relation to the concerns listed below, that the death occurred some five and a half years ago.

Given the likelihood that the areas of concern relate not just to the police force in my jurisdiction, I have addressed this report to the National Police Chiefs’ Council. I note that the website of the NPCC currently lists violence against women and girls as the first area of work that they are focusing on.

Thames Valley Police’s own training confirms that coercive and controlling behaviour is a major risk factor in domestic homicide.

1. Whether sufficient steps have been taken to ensure that frontline staff have a clear understanding of domestic abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour – to think not just about physical abuse, but also about controlling behaviour and how that may escalate.
2. I am concerned that Thames Valley Police’s DASH risk assessment form (called a DOM5) does not make it sufficiently clear that the definition of “serious harm” can include psychological harm from coercive and controlling behaviour. It may be that other formulations of this document nationally do make this clear – I have looked only at the form used by Thames Valley Police.
3. I heard evidence about a new tool for risk assessing domestic abuse, created by the College of Policing. Both the senior Thames Valley Police officer and the College of Policing witness gave evidence that this system is likely to result in better risk assessment for domestic abuse. As I understand it, this new tool has not been adopted by Thames Valley Police at this time, because of competing financial priorities, and an issue with compatibility with the Niche system.