Clare’s Law is based on the premise that one person’s right to safety supersedes the right to privacy of a person who has a previous history of gender-based violence that is known to the police. The story of Clare Wood, whom the Interpersonal Violence Disclosure Protocol (Clare’s Law) Act is named after, illustrates what can happen when this principle is not followed.
Clare's Law was first enacted in England and Wales in 2014 in response to the death of Clare Wood who was murdered in 2009 by a former partner who had a history of violence known to police including a conviction for violent sexual assault. That information was never disclosed to Clare, despite her seeking help from police when he stalked and harassed her. He went on to brutally murder her. Following her death, Clare’s father advocated for the creation of Clare’s Law in the United Kingdom, firmly believing that if Clare had known about her partner’s history of violence, she would have made different choices and would still be alive today.
Clare’s Law is proactive, rather than reactive. It provides people who could be at risk of violence from their partner with information relating to their potential risk allowing them the opportunity to make an informed decision regarding the relationship before violence happens. Clare’s Law aims to interrupt the impact of repeat perpetrators of intimate partner violence by informing subsequent and potential partners of the risk posed by the perpetrator. Domestic homicide reviews consistently show that a history of domestic violence and other related criminal activity are major risk factors for reoccurring violence. Therefore, Clare’s Law is an evidence-based approach used to reduce incidents of IPV and decrease the risk of intimate partner homicide.
While some critics have been concerned that Clare’s Law violates the right to privacy of the subjects of Clare’s Law applications, measures are in place to ensure that any information disclosed is used solely to increase the safety of the person or persons at risk. An initial conversation with the police screens out individuals who may be fishing for information on a previous partner, perhaps hoping to discover something detrimental that could be used in family court. Applications to screen new partners without any indication of abusive behaviours would not be considered.
The information provided to the Multi-Sector Review Committee is de-identified. The committee determines if a disclosure is appropriate, what level of risk the situation poses and what information can and should be shared. Only the person at risk, or a parent or guardian for someone under 18 or determined to be legally incompetent will receive the disclosure. The information is provided verbally and no documents are shared other than information related to safety planning and available supports. This information is provided regardless of risk level, even when there is no information known to the police. Individuals who receive a disclosure under Clare’s Law must sign a confidentiality agreement in which they agree only to share the information provided within their circle of care (e.g., domestic violence counsellor) to keep themselves and others, including children, safe.
Some critics have been concerned that individuals who receive a disclosure but choose to continue in the relationship will be blamed for making this choice. The reality is that victims and survivors of IPV routinely return to an abusive partner multiple times before making a final break in the relationship. This is often due to familial or community pressure to keep the family together, threats and manipulation by the abusive partner, economic concerns where one partner has been financially abused in the relationship, and hope that the partner can change. Victim blaming is unfortunately part of the dynamic of IPV and one reason that they often choose to stay in a dangerous situation.
Where information is available that an individual is at risk of re-offending against an intimate partner and a new potential victim has asked for this potentially lifesaving information, society has a moral obligation to provide it. For over forty years, women’s organizations have been providing emergency shelter and other support to women fleeing violence and the rate of IPV has not decreased. In fact, in recent years the rate of police-reported IPV and femicides have increased. We need to implement more evidence-based proactive prevention measures. Clare’s Law is one such measure.
Consider this scenario: a woman living in a small city has left her husband after years of physical and emotional abuse. During their years together, police were involved and there are multiple occurrence reports and some convictions. She is attending a child’s sporting event and sees her former husband with the mother of another child. Knowing what she does about her husband’s past behaviour, and out of concern for this woman, an acquaintance, should she become involved with her former husband, she makes an application under Clare’s Law. On reviewing the file, the review committee discovered not only the past occurrences and convictions related to the applicant but also that there is a pending charge involving strangulation with a third woman. A disclosure of a high level of risk is offered to both recent partners of the applicant’s ex-husband. The applicant also receives information about safety planning in case her ex-husband should somehow become aware of her role in the application and disclosure though the subject of the application is rarely made aware of it. This is a real case that took place in Saskatchewan. Three women were provided with information to increase their safety. The only details about the subject that are shared are public information—relevant criminal convictions and pending charges.
The first Clare’s Law Multi-sector Review Committee Annual Report included testimonials from recipients of Clare’s Law disclosures, as well as a victim advocate. These included “I was able to make an informed decision based on the info that I received…” and “…100% recommended. Thank you so much for letting me keep my life and warn me as it almost ended with him.” You can learn more about the impact of Clare’s Law in the UK, ten years after implementation, here.
Jo-Anne Dusel (she/her) is the Executive Director at the Provincial Association of Transition Houses and Services of Saskatchewan (PATHS) and a member of Saskatchewan’s Multi-Sector Review Committee (MSRC) for Clare’s Law.
Crystal J. Giesbrecht, PhD (she/her) is the Director of Research at the Provincial Association of Transition Houses and Services of Saskatchewan (PATHS) and a member of Saskatchewan’s Multi-Sector Review Committee (MSRC) for Clare’s Law.
https://pathssk.org/