Lincolnshire Police ‘missed opportunities’ to build bigger picture of domestic abuse, expert tells inquest into death of Grantham woman Daniela Espirito Santo

A policing expert has told a jury there were “missed opportunities” to build a bigger picture around the domestic abuse a young mother was suffering before she died.

Dr Jacqueline Sebire, who has more than 30 years’ experience in policing, gave evidence to the jury inquest into the death of Daniela Espírito Santo today (Thursday). Daniela died in Grantham in April 2020.

Dr Sebire is currently an assistant professor in leadership and assessment skills at the Rabdan Academy in the United Arab Emirates and was previously an assistant chief constable for Bedfordshire Police, having risen through the ranks of the Metropolitan Police Service since 1992.

She has also studied for a master’s degree and a PhD in psychology at the University of Leicester and carried out research into domestic abuse, including numerous journal articles and textbooks on how to deal with domestic abuse. She is also a visiting professor at the University of Cambridge.

Daniela made several reports about assaults by her partner, Julio Jesus, in the year before her death in the early hours of April 9, 2020.

Dr Sebire ran through each of the police reports Daniela had made on May 19, November 6, December 29, and April 8.

She said “missed opportunities” included a lack of consideration for controlling and coercive behaviour, missing information from Lincolnshire Police’s computer system, incidents being treated in silos, the potential to remand in custody, and “ill-conceived” bail conditions.

She said that for the first incident Daniela reported on May 19, she did not have any concerns about how police responded, except to say that there should have been a referral to child protection services to make them aware.

She said “standard” graded assessments carried out at the time were “appropriate” given the information the officer had and the fact there were no other incidents in the police system.

The National Domestic Violence Helpline is a 24hr Freephone available on 0808 2000 247 operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

She said the November 6, 2019, incident was also “as expected”, adding that officers showed “great compassion and care towards Daniela”, understood her health condition, and gave her some time to decide how she wanted to proceed.

However, she said one of the underlying issues of the whole case had arisen during the report – the under-reporting of crimes.

She said the officers could have reported two assaults during their response.

“While officers were careful in thinking about reporting what had happened, they did not report the incident that happened two days ago,” she said.

“This is important because we start building up this police picture around what’s going on in this relationship.”

She also praised the officers’ supervisor for their review of the “medium” graded Dash report (domestic abuse, stalking and harassment) assessment carried out, including the potential for a domestic violence protection notice to be considered.

She noted that although Daniela didn’t report controlling and coercive behaviour, there were factors beginning to appear.

“She’s talking about drug use, financial pressures, the pressures of having young children, and threats. There was, I believe, enough here that [the officers] wouldn’t have been wrong had they reported for controlling and coercive behaviour,” she said.

She added that if they had, it would have been included when officers looked back at information in the future.

On December 29, Daniela called and spoke to an operator for 40 minutes before officers arrived to investigate her reports of incidents over the Christmas period – one on December 25 and another on December 26.

Dr Sebire praised the “compassion” of the call handler, who said they did a good job.

However, she said there were a “number of issues” with the police follow-up.

This included the Dash report grading as ‘standard’.

“This incident was reported as standard but when you look at what has happened, it’s being dealt with in a silo effect,” she said.

“The officer has only looked at that incident and reported one crime, not two as Daniela had done.”

She noted that it again included “non-fatal strangulation”, adding that the officer had not considered previous incidents in the background history.

Again, she said this prevented officers from seeing the bigger picture.

She added that even if the officer had been unable to fill in everything at the scene, he should have double-checked it when he returned to the office and had the opportunity to do further research.

She said controlling and coercive behaviour was again missed.

“Again, we have got sleeping on the sofa, we have got financial issues, financial pressures. Again, I would suggest that an allegation of controlling and coercive behaviour could have been recorded.”

She said had the information been available, police could have looked to see if they had enough information for an “evidence-led cause for arrest”, even if Daniela hadn’t formally requested it.

She said there was an absence of processes by both the investigating officer and supervisors.

She suggested that had they done so, the “standard” graded Dash assessment would have been higher.

“If I were a supervisor and had an allegation of controlling and coercive behaviour, two assaults, and the background information, it could have led me to think more strongly about a domestic violence protection notice or evidence-based prosecution,” she said.

She added that there was a lack of information within the reports about why certain decisions were made.

Contrary to PC McGhee’s earlier statements to the inquest, she said he could also have given Daniela time to think about whether she wanted to make a formal statement.

Dr Sebire disagreed with a “medium” graded Dash assessment into Daniela’s final assault report on April 8, 2020.

However, she said it was well explained by the officer why they had given it and was therefore appropriate.

The grading was later upgraded to “high” by a supervising officer.

“Personally, I would have graded it as high because, again, we have strangulation,” she said.

Mr Jesus was arrested shortly after Daniela agreed to make a formal complaint to the police for the first time on April 8, 2020.

She again noted that Mr Jesus was arrested for one offence (assault occasioning actual bodily harm) rather than two, despite Daniela reporting two incidents.

She agreed with the supervisor’s suggestion to further arrest Mr Jesus for controlling and coercive behaviour, but said this should have been done before his interview.

Mr Jesus was not arrested for the offence before Daniela’s death. He would later be arrested on suspicion of manslaughter; however, due to a lack of medical evidence linking any assault to her death, he was only found guilty of two assaults.

Dr Sebire said officers should have spent more time investigating the offences before releasing Mr Jesus and believed he could have been kept in custody for longer, giving officers the opportunity to get further statements.

She also criticised the investigating officer for not doing more thorough background checks, reading Dash reports or listening to the 999 call.

She said they could have used body-worn camera footage of Daniela to build up a bigger picture to interview Mr Jesus with while they sought further information and statements.

Detainees can be held for up to 24 hours in custody while investigations are carried out, though there are certain risks to consider regarding their wellbeing. This can also be extended using a threshold test with the Crown Prosecution Service, if needed.

“He’d [Mr Jesus] only been in custody for 5.5 hours, so they had plenty of time to make those further enquiries,” said Dr Sebire.

“They could have gone back to Daniela and got more statements.

“Officers should try to get as much evidence as required while the offender is in custody and they had time to do that.”

Dr Sebire believed officers were “tunnel-visioned” by the belief that he would be interviewed and released on bail before his interview.

Asked if bail was appropriate, she agreed it was based on the information but added: “The issue here is that whilst the decision to bail is not inappropriate, it’s the fact that the possibility of keeping him in custody to approach CPS wanting to remand was not considered as a viable alternative.”

She said the issue was not the decision itself but the decision-making process.

She said “the term that ‘we would get laughed at’ concerned me greatly” in reference to officers not referring the decision to the CPS.

Dr Sebire, in particular, said the bail conditions not to return to Chestnut Grove or to contact Daniela were not appropriate.

“For me, the issue of not having an address for Mr Jesus to live and sleep at concerns me greatly,” she said.

“Clearly, we have a man who was emotionally distressed (he was on 30-minute checks), he was a drug user, he was potentially suicidal – to be released to a vehicle parked outside the victim’s street is inconceivable,” she said.

“There should have been an address for him to go to.”

She said that putting him on the street where Daniela lived created a risk for both him and Daniela.

“Daniela was very clear that it was a pattern of behaviour [that he would go back to her] and officers knew she had said he would do that.

“At the least, I would have expected them to escort him to his car, or make precautions to collect his belongings – or ensure he had an address to go to.”

She said more training was needed for both officers and supervisors around domestic abuse, including regular check ins by supervisors questioning the decision-making processes about cases which were handled.

The inquest continues.