Independent DHR and DARDR chairing and authorship
Independent chairing and authoring of Domestic Homicide Reviews and Domestic Abuse Related Death Reviews, supporting partnerships to deliver fair, rigorous reviews that produce meaningful learning and strengthen safeguarding systems.
You may see both terms used. Many partnerships still refer to Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHRs) in practice, while Domestic Abuse Related Death Reviews (DARDRs) is increasingly used to reflect a wider safeguarding focus. This page uses both terms.
Role and purpose
The role of the independent chair and author is to hold the process steady and ensure the review is conducted with integrity, fairness and rigour. The focus is learning and system improvement, not blame and not hindsight judgement.
AbuseFreeLife supports partnerships to examine how and why decisions were made at the time, understand professional context, and identify where safeguarding systems did not function as intended.
How I approach independent chairing and authorship
I pay close attention to the areas that repeatedly sit underneath serious harm: decision making, risk assessment, information sharing, supervision, escalation, and the cumulative impact of harm over time. Serious outcomes rarely arise from a single failure. They arise from patterns, drift and missed opportunities to intervene.
Reviews are conducted in line with national guidance and quality assurance expectations, with an emphasis on transparency, analytical depth and respect for professional roles.
Read the approach: Functions, not apps
How the review usually runs
Step one: Scoping and setting the terms
Agreeing the scope, timetable and governance, setting expectations for IMRs and engagement, and ensuring the review is proportionate and focused on learning that can realistically improve practice.
Step two: Evidence gathering and multi agency learning
Working with the panel to ensure agencies provide clear evidence, professional context and analysis, not just chronology. Identifying key decision points, escalation opportunities and system factors that shaped practice.
Step three: Analysis, findings and recommendations
Producing a clear, analytical overview report that explains why decisions made sense at the time, where safeguarding functions failed, and what needs to change. Recommendations are proportionate, evidence informed and actionable.
Step four: Quality assurance readiness and implementation focus
Ensuring the report is written to withstand scrutiny, with a clear line of sight from learning to recommendations and action planning.
MARAC and safeguarding system assurance
I bring extensive experience of independent MARAC chairing and partnership assurance. This matters because MARAC is often where the system shows its strengths and weaknesses most clearly.
Particular attention is given to drift from core principles, normalisation of risk, dilution of professional challenge and inconsistent thresholds, which frequently feature in DHRs and DARDRs.
Working with partnerships
AbuseFreeLife works with Community Safety Partnerships and review panels to support reviews that are proportionate, timely and focused on meaningful learning. The role of the independent chair is to manage complexity and challenge appropriately, maintain fairness, and keep the work focused on improvement.
Where agencies disagree, that is handled transparently and evidenced properly, without the review becoming adversarial or losing focus.
Outputs and learning
A clear, analytical overview report that stands up to scrutiny.
Findings that explain why decisions were made, not just whether a procedure was followed.
Recommendations that are proportionate, evidence informed and actionable.
A clear line of sight from learning to action planning and improvement.
Independent DARDR chairing and authorship is undertaken with care, integrity and independence, supporting partnerships to learn effectively from tragedy and strengthen safeguarding responses for the future.