Marac system ineffective for chaotic victims
Home Office received 2 coroners' reports about this hazard between 27 Mar 2019 and 27 Jun 2022.
They came from 2 different coroners in 2 coroner areas. A similar concern was raised again 1 time after the first warning.
A published response was found for 1 of the 1 earlier reports, stating 3 specific actions.
The story, report by report
Spacing grows with the time between reports.
“The MARAC process was incapable of facilitating protection and resolution of problems for chaotic non engaging individuals.”
Original on judiciary.uk ↗ Home Office responded, stating 1 specific action.Response (PDF) ↗
“We support your recommendation for a national review of how the MARAC system can afford protection and support for these particularly vulnerable complex individuals.”
Web search (Tavily): No evidence found either way
Supporting high-risk victims of domestic violence: a review ... ↗- 3 years 3 months laterClosely relatedConfidence 0.80 · moderatea different coroner
“There is no single point of contact to oversee the collation of all 2 information, to appropriate assess it and to coordinate a structured proactive approach to people with dual or multi diagnosis.”
Original on judiciary.uk ↗ Home Office responded, stating 2 specific actions.Response (PDF) ↗Response (PDF) ↗
“I will look to ensure that officials provide you with a full response by that date to the important issues which the Report raises.”
Stated timescale: 23 August
“The government published the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 Statutory Guidance on 8 July 2022 to support with the understanding and implementation of the definitions of 'domestic abuse' and 'personally connected' as set out in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.”
Stated timescale: 8 July 2022
- All reports to Home Office
Each row is one judged link between an earlier and a later report. Open a row to read both quotes, found word for word in the originals.
2019 → 2022Jessica Laverack3 years 3 months after Donna Williamson · different coronerClosely relatedConfidence 0.80 · moderate
Closely relatedConfidence 0.80 · moderateBoth reports highlight shortcomings of the MARAC system in protecting vulnerable individuals. The earlier report focuses on its inability to help chaotic non‑engaging people, while the later report notes the lack of a single point of contact for those with dual or multi diagnoses.
Donna Williamson · 27 Mar 2019
“The MARAC process was incapable of facilitating protection and resolution of problems for chaotic non engaging individuals.”
Original on judiciary.uk ↗ Jessica Laverack · 27 Jun 2022
“There is no single point of contact to oversee the collation of all 2 information, to appropriate assess it and to coordinate a structured proactive approach to people with dual or multi diagnosis.”
Original on judiciary.uk ↗ Stated action in the response to the earlier report
“We support your recommendation for a national review of how the MARAC system can afford protection and support for these particularly vulnerable complex individuals.”
Stated action
“We support your recommendation for a national review of how the MARAC system can afford protection and support for these particularly vulnerable complex individuals.”
What happened next: No evidence found either way
The organisation's statement about supporting a national review of MARAC protection systems is not confirmed by any source evidence.
“in their opinion, their MARAC was very effective at enhancing information sharing. Agency representation.”
“a review of MARACs would be undertaken in order to improve understanding of how MARACs are working and potential areas of development”
“MARACs are widely used across England and Wales in response to high-risk domestic abuse. There is a paucity of academic research available around MARAC processes”
No evidence found does not mean the action did not happen.
Stated action · timescale: 23 August
“I will look to ensure that officials provide you with a full response by that date to the important issues which the Report raises.”
Stated action · timescale: 8 July 2022
“The government published the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 Statutory Guidance on 8 July 2022 to support with the understanding and implementation of the definitions of 'domestic abuse' and 'personally connected' as set out in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.”
- Each report's concerns were extracted by Nemotron 3 Nano on Nebius Token Factory, each with a quote copied from the report.
- Concerns from reports to Home Office at least six months apart were compared by meaning (Qwen3 embeddings) and wording (TF-IDF).
- The closest pairs were judged by Nemotron 3 Super with reasoning on. Only identical or closely related, with confidence of at least 0.70, are shown.
- Every quote was checked by code as an exact substring of the original text. Names of staff and family are redacted, and the deceased are named by report title only.
| Link | Meaning | Wording | Judge | Coroner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 → 2022 | 0.72 | 0.09 | Closely related · 0.80 | different |
Judge model: nvidia/nemotron-3-super-120b-a12b. How Nemotron did the work · Full methodology.
Next
Other chains for Home Office
- Lack of vulnerability assessment for domestic violence recipients2 reports · 2024–2026
- Inadequate CAWN risk assessment for young persons2 reports · 2019–2026
- Unflagged firearms licence holder with deteriorating mental health2 reports · 2015–2026
- Limited access to police national database by front line officers2 reports · 2021–2025
This shows that a similar concern was raised again after an earlier report. It does not say why, and it is not a finding about any organisation or person. To report an error, see the corrections route.