Victim Not Suspect covers criminal justice reform, parliamentary submissions, police accountability, digital evidence standards, and practical resources. Click any section to go directly there.
You are not alone. If you found out a report had been made against you before you knew anything was happening, this page is for you.
What Victim Not Suspect is, why it exists, and the pattern of wrongful prosecution we exist to challenge.
Digital evidence failures, DARVO dynamics, police accountability, and the disclosure framework — the four areas our work addresses.
The systemic failures documented in the Northumbria Digital Forensics Report and other primary research underpinning our work.
Live tracking of every bill, inquiry and consultation relevant to our work. Three submissions already on the parliamentary record.
Five years on: the Angiolini Inquiry, the BBC drama in production, and what systemic police failure means for wrongly accused victims.
Primary sources, DARVO research, legal case law, the Gemini Project, and key documents for understanding and challenging wrongful prosecution.
How to use Freedom of Information requests, Subject Access Requests, and data rights to build your case and hold institutions accountable.
Tracking every PEEL inspection report in the 2025-2028 cycle, flagging grades for safeguarding vulnerable people and investigating crime across all 43 forces.
Force-by-force misconduct data, IOPC complaint statistics, and news from across the criminal justice system.
Practical steps if you have been wrongly accused or arrested, including what to document, who to contact, and how to begin building your response.
Charities, legal organisations, campaign groups, and official bodies that can help, from the Suzy Lamplugh Trust to the Gemini Project.
Jennifer Freyd on DARVO, Laura Richards on stalking, the BBC Panorama Post Office documentary, and the Research in Practice podcast with Dr Olumide Adisa.
You find out a report has been made against you. Not because anyone told you — but because something appears: a record, a warning, a document that already treats you as the suspect. The person who has been stalking or harassing you made contact with police before you knew anything was happening. By the time you find out, a narrative already exists.
You try to report what is actually happening to you. Your report is not investigated. Nobody asks to see your evidence. The officers who took the earlier report do not follow up. You are told things about the situation that later turn out not to be accurate.
Then you are arrested. It happens at a time and in a way you did not expect. Devices are taken from you — your phone, your laptop, perhaps a work device. You are shown evidence you have never seen before: screenshots, messages, content that you do not recognise or that you know to be false. You are not believed.
The people around you struggle to understand. The charge sounds serious. The person who reported you presents as credible and distressed. You are the one who has been arrested. The system has decided who the victim is — and it is not you.
This is a documented pattern. It has a name: DARVO — Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. It is not a one-off failure. It is a systemic gap in how digital evidence is handled, how reports are assessed, and how the criminal justice system identifies who it is protecting. It happens because unverified screenshots are accepted at face value, because the person who reports first shapes the narrative, and because actual victims' own reports go uninvestigated while a prosecution is built against them.
You are not the first person this has happened to. The failure is not yours. The system was supposed to protect you — and it did not. That is what Victim Not Suspect exists to say, and to change.
Our Mission
When police act on one side of a story — when screenshots go unverified, when the actual victim's own report goes uninvestigated, when a Community Resolution is obtained by misrepresentation — the criminal justice system becomes a tool of harm rather than protection.
Victim Not Suspect exists to challenge that. We document systemic failures in how digital evidence is handled, advocate for reform, and provide resources for anyone navigating a system that has misidentified them as the perpetrator.
Our work spans four interconnected areas: digital evidence standards, DARVO dynamics in online conduct cases, police accountability, and the disclosure framework. Everything we do is grounded in research, data, and evidence.
Griffiths, Piasecki, Carr, Anderson & Wilson
Northumbria University Digital Forensics Project, 2024
What We Address
Screenshots submitted without metadata, platform verification, or chain of custody. Devices held for years without examination. Forensic illiteracy among investigators, prosecutors, and courts. Evidence that could exonerate — never sought, never disclosed.
In online conduct cases, the person who reaches law enforcement first is often treated as the victim regardless of the underlying facts. The real victim's own reports go uninvestigated. Impersonation accounts go unexamined. The system becomes a tool of abuse.
Unlawful arrests. Misuse of Community Resolutions. Failure to investigate victim reports. Safeguarding ignored. CMHT communications unanswered. Complaints paused under sub judice cover while prosecution proceeds. We document these patterns and push for structural reform.
Defence-critical material not disclosed. Platform data never requested. Witness statement versions undisclosed. Exculpatory evidence on seized devices — never examined after more than a year. The disclosure regime as applied to digital evidence is systematically broken.
Our Evidence Base
The Northumbria University Digital Forensics Project (2024) is the most comprehensive study of digital forensics across the criminal justice system to date. Presented to the Home Office-led Forensic Science Reform Programme Board, its findings underpin our reform agenda.
Key findings:
The Courts and Tribunals Bill proposes to remove the right to elect Crown Court trial for either-way offences. The Northumbria report specifically calls for an urgent review of digital evidence practice in magistrates' courts. These two developments are on a collision course — and we are raising this directly with Parliament.
There are no mandatory requirements to seek platform verification, metadata, or IP data before charges are brought in cases relying on screenshot evidence. Screenshots can be fabricated or captured from impersonation accounts. Without forensic verification there is no reliable basis for determining authorship.
Community Resolutions are intended as low-level informal disposals. They are being used as tools of coercive control — obtained by misrepresentation, overlapping with criminal charge windows, and accepted without investigation of the underlying facts.
Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. Well-documented in domestic abuse literature and increasingly visible in online harassment cases. Police training rarely addresses it; digital evidence failures make it easier to execute.
Parliamentary Work
We submit evidence to parliamentary committees, respond to consultations, and engage with legislators on the reform agenda. We are not aligned to any political party.
Victim Not Suspect has made two written submissions on this Bill. Our Justice Committee submission (ref YAG640344, published 17 March 2026) set out the full case. Our Public Bill Committee submission (8 April 2026, circulated to committee members) proposes three specific amendments around digital evidence verification, pre-charge standards, and Clause 11 propensity evidence.
Five recommendations including exempting digitally-evidenced cases from jury trial removal until mandatory forensic standards are in place. Justice Committee submission published 17 March 2026 (ref YAG640344) — read it on parliament.uk. Public Bill Committee submission made 8 April 2026, circulated to all committee members.
Richard Wright KC's independent review of stalking law for the Home Office has now concluded. Wright KC examined whether the legal framework adequately covers technology-facilitated stalking and whether harassment and stalking legislation works as a coherent whole. The review has been submitted to the Home Secretary and is awaiting publication.
We are monitoring this review closely. Our work on digital evidence failures in stalking prosecutions, victim misidentification, and DARVO dynamics is directly relevant to its scope. We will engage with the Government's response when published.
The MoJ consulted on a new Code of Practice for Victims of Crime under the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. Victim Not Suspect submitted a response arguing that the Code fails an entire category of victim: those wrongly identified as suspects and prosecuted for crimes committed against them. No other organisation made this argument in these terms.
The draft Code assumes victim identity is correctly determined at the point of first report. In stalking and harassment cases involving DARVO dynamics, this assumption fails. We submitted six specific proposals including a requirement that needs assessments check for prior reports by the person being assessed, and explicit recognition that a person may be a victim even where they are simultaneously subject to prosecution.
A Government Bill currently in the Lords. At Committee Stage, an amendment (Chakrabarti/Arbuthnot) was tabled to remove the common law presumption of computer reliability in criminal proceedings — a legal presumption that enabled the Post Office Horizon scandal. The amendment was withdrawn following a Government commitment to ask the Lord Chancellor to write to the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee to develop new procedural safeguards.
The computer evidence amendment was withdrawn on a Government commitment — not defeated. The Government committed to ask the Lord Chancellor to write to the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee to develop new procedural safeguards for digital evidence. We are monitoring this commitment and will engage when the Committee consults. The Bill also extends the Victim Contact Scheme to stalking and harassment victims and gives the Victims' Commissioner power to investigate individual cases exposing systemic failure.
Published 18 December 2025, the Strategy commits to specialist investigation teams in all forces, a National Centre for VAWG and Public Protection, expanded stalking risk assessment, and independent stalking victim advocates. Parliamentary scrutiny is expected; we will engage when a formal inquiry is announced.
A wide-ranging Home Office Bill now in its final Commons stages. Contains strengthened Stalking Protection Orders (SPOs), a statutory Right to Know for victims about their stalker's identity, and police reform provisions including centralised digital forensics. The Lords completed their stages and the Bill has returned to the Commons for consideration of Lords amendments.
Sir Brian Leveson's two-part review found that massive digital evidence volumes are a key driver of the 75,000-case Crown Court backlog, and recommended specialist courts for sexual offences, improved digital evidence management, and prioritised RASSO case listing. Many recommendations are being implemented via the Courts and Tribunals Bill.
The Northumbria University report (2024) called for mandatory standards for digital evidence in magistrates' courts. The Home Office Policing Reform White Paper (January 2026) proposes a Police.AI national centre (£115m) and centralised forensics to address the national backlog. We are monitoring the Government's response.
Would place a statutory duty of candour and assistance on public authorities and officials — including police — at inquiries and investigations, with criminal offences for those who mislead the public. Directly relevant to police accountability in wrongful prosecution cases. The Bill stalled in January 2026 over provisions affecting intelligence services and has not yet returned to the Commons. The Lords debated exclusion of MPs and Peers from the misleading-the-public offence on 26 February 2026.
Jonathan Fisher KC's independent review of the criminal disclosure regime published 45 recommendations in March 2025. It found that the exponential growth of digital material has created a disclosure crisis, with resource and training failures leaving investigators unable to manage digital evidence effectively. The Government committed to a response "later in 2025" — that response remains outstanding. Part 2, focused on fraud offences, is underway.
The Fisher Review is the first independent examination of how digital evidence is disclosed in criminal proceedings. Its findings on investigator training failures and device backlogs directly support VNS's evidence base on digital forensic failures in stalking and harassment prosecutions. We will engage with the Government's response when published.
Sarah Everard was abducted, raped and murdered in March 2021 by Wayne Couzens, a serving Metropolitan Police officer. Her death prompted a national reckoning on police culture, vetting failures, and violence against women. Five years later, the accountability process continues.
Couzens had a history of sexual offending across multiple forces that was repeatedly ignored. He falsely arrested Sarah Everard, drove her to Kent, and murdered her. He is serving a whole-life sentence. The case exposed what the Angiolini Inquiry described as systemic failures in vetting, culture and oversight that allowed a predatory officer to remain in post.
Lady Elish Angiolini's two-part inquiry made 16 recommendations. Part 2, published December 2025, found that many remain unimplemented — including a key proposal to bar officers with prior sexual offence convictions or cautions from policing roles. Since 2021, only five forces have been rated good for vetting, while nine of eleven inspected since 2025 required improvement in handling misconduct allegations.
A two-part factual drama written by BAFTA-winning writer Jeff Pope (Little Boy Blue, A Confession) has been commissioned by the BBC. It will examine how, over many years and across different forces, evidence of Couzens' sexual offending was repeatedly dismissed and poor vetting meant vital evidence against him was never collected. The production team is in contact with Sarah's family. No release date has been announced.
A misconduct hearing ruled in early 2026 that former Metropolitan Police officer Joss Astley had harassed and stalked 11 women through unwanted and intrusive social media messages sent repeatedly between 2014 and 2020. The panel described the conduct as deliberate, sustained and predatory. Digital forensic evidence was central to the case. Astley would have been dismissed without notice had he still been serving. The case demonstrates both that online stalking by officers occurs at scale, and that digital forensic evidence can and should be used to establish it.
The Couzens case exposed a culture in which complaints against officers were not investigated, red flags were ignored, and institutional protection overrode accountability. Victim Not Suspect exists at a related but distinct point of failure: the cases where that same culture causes police to pursue the wrong person entirely, prosecuting actual victims while leaving perpetrators uninvestigated. The lessons of Sarah Everard's case apply directly to the systemic reforms we advocate for.
These are the primary sources that matter in cases of wrongful prosecution arising from digital evidence failures — documents decision-makers use, and which strengthen any challenge to systemic failure.
The most comprehensive study of digital forensic practice in England and Wales. Found that examiners frequently lack tools to verify social media evidence, and that courts proceed on an assumption of reliability that is not warranted. The evidential foundation of our parliamentary submissions.
Read the report →Jonathan Fisher KC's 45-recommendation review for the Home Office on the criminal disclosure crisis caused by digital evidence volumes. Directly relevant to CPIA failures, device backlogs, and the absence of disclosure standards for social media evidence.
Full report on GOV.UK →The joint IOPC, HMICFRS and College of Policing investigation into police handling of stalking. Found evidence of systemic failures across all forces. Every force was required to publish a public action plan by November 2024 — those plans can be used to hold forces accountable.
College of Policing response →Every police force in England and Wales published a stalking action plan in November 2024. These set out what each force committed to improving. If your force's response to a stalking report fell short of those commitments, the action plan is evidence of the standard they were required to meet.
NPCC progress update → All responses on GOV.UK →Every police force is independently graded across nine areas including protection of vulnerable people, investigation quality, and responding to the public. PEEL reports are public. If your force was graded as requiring improvement or inadequate in relevant areas, that is evidence of systemic failure.
The 2025-2028 inspection cycle is now underway. Reports are being published on a rolling basis from April 2026. Any force graded as requiring improvement or inadequate for protecting vulnerable people is directly relevant to VNS's evidence base. Suffolk Constabulary was inspected in April 2026 — report pending publication.
Find your force's report → Suffolk 2023-25 report →The Ministry of Justice's open data platform covering prosecution rates, conviction rates and outcomes by offence type for England and Wales. Stalking and harassment data is available here and can contextualise individual cases within systemic patterns of under-prosecution or misidentification.
data.justice.gov.uk →The National Archives' free searchable database of judgments from the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, High Court and other courts and tribunals. Essential for finding decisions relevant to digital evidence, police accountability, and wrongful prosecution.
caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk →The parent legislation for the new Victims' Code currently under consultation. Sets out the statutory framework for victims' rights in the criminal justice system, including the right to information, access to services, and the ability to challenge decisions that directly affect them.
Legislation on legislation.gov.uk →DARVO is not yet a statutory term in English law, but the underlying pattern is increasingly recognised by courts, practitioners and researchers. These are the primary sources. Note: there are no reported UK judgments that explicitly name DARVO, but the behaviour it describes is well documented in family court proceedings, coercive control cases, and academic research on perpetrator tactics.
DARVO was first described by psychologist Jennifer Freyd in 1997 within betrayal trauma theory. Her website provides a full summary of the concept, the research history, and links to empirical studies. The foundational academic source for anyone using the term.
jjfreyd.com →The first empirical study to validate DARVO as a unified concept. Found DARVO was used in 72% of confrontations, that women were more likely to be exposed to it than men, and that exposure to DARVO was directly associated with increased self-blame in victims. Open access.
Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma →A peer-reviewed paper examining the specific use of defamation proceedings as a DARVO tactic — the legal weaponisation of the justice system to silence victims. Directly relevant to cases where a perpetrator uses civil or criminal law to reverse victim and offender roles.
Journal of Trauma and Dissociation →A practitioner-authored analysis of how DARVO operates in English family proceedings, how courts are beginning to recognise the pattern under coercive control frameworks, and what this means for evidence and credibility. Written by family law solicitors, not academic researchers.
Keystone Law analysis →A detailed investigation by Catriona Innes and Jennifer Savin into the rise of legal weaponisation against survivors, including the case of the Nevitt sisters and the use of defamation, harassment and misuse of private information claims to silence victims. One of the most widely read accounts of DARVO in the UK press.
Read the investigation →Founded by twins Verity and Lucy Nevitt following their own experience of legal weaponisation by an alleged abuser. The Gemini Project campaigns to change how sexual violence cases are tried and is gathering data on how abusers weaponise civil litigation against survivors. A direct parallel to VNS's focus on criminal justice misidentification.
thegeminiproject.org →A landmark case in which a rape prosecution collapsed when the complainant's phone records, not disclosed until the trial was underway, showed thousands of messages inconsistent with the allegation. The case prompted a national review of digital disclosure. Directly relevant to the consequences of failing to examine digital evidence before charge.
Search Find Case Law →The foundational UK case on the dangers of the presumption that computer evidence is reliable. Hundreds of wrongful convictions resulted from courts accepting Horizon system data without question. The Chakrabarti/Arbuthnot amendment in the Victims and Courts Bill sought to address the same presumption in all criminal proceedings.
Post Office Scandal (Nick Wallis) → Official Horizon IT Inquiry →Dr Adisa is a Senior Research Fellow at the Violence and Society Centre, City St George's, University of London, and Policy and Commissioning Manager at the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime. She founded the Domestic Abuse Research Network (DARNet) and co-edited the 2024 Palgrave volume Tackling Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence: A Systems Approach. Her work on systemic failure in responses to VAWG — including how institutions inadvertently protect perpetrators — is directly relevant to the VNS evidence base. DARNet spans over 20 universities and 250 members.
drolumideadisa.com → City St George's profile → DARNet →Curated links to the most useful video and audio content on DARVO, stalking, digital evidence failure, and wrongful prosecution. These are not embeds — follow the links to watch or listen.
The originator of the DARVO concept presents the research herself. This 9-minute video covers betrayal trauma, DARVO, institutional betrayal, and institutional courage — the clearest and most authoritative introduction to the concept that exists. Available on her research page.
Watch on jjfreyd.com →Laura Richards is a former New Scotland Yard criminal behavioural analyst, founder of Paladin (the National Stalking Advocacy Service), and the architect of the stalking law reform that created the s.2A and s.4A Protection from Harassment Act offences. Her YouTube channel covers stalking behaviour, coercive control, perpetrator profiling, and risk assessment — grounded in decades of frontline police and advocacy experience.
YouTube: @crimeanalyst → crime-analyst.com →The Panorama documentary that brought the scale of the Horizon wrongful conviction scandal to public attention, featuring testimony from subpostmasters whose lives were destroyed by computer evidence accepted without question. Directly relevant to the presumption of computer reliability that VNS challenges. Search BBC iPlayer for "Panorama Post Office Scandal" or find it via the link below.
BBC Panorama → postofficescandal.uk →Dr Olumide Adisa appears alongside Jo Todd (Respect) and Kyla Kirkpatrick (Drive Partnership) in this Research in Practice podcast discussing the evidence base on domestic abuse, perpetration, and the interface with statutory systems. Audio only, but substantive and accessible.
Listen on researchinpractice.org.uk →FOI Research Programme
We use Freedom of Information requests to build a systematic picture of how police forces handle digital evidence, device retention, victim reporting, and civil settlements.
Requests are published in full — questions asked, responses received, and analysis where data permits. Results are available for researchers, journalists, lawyers, and campaigners to draw on freely.
We also encourage individuals to make their own requests via WhatDoTheyKnow.
Digital forensic examination rates · Device retention timescales · Civil settlement values by claim type · Community Resolution oversight and appeal rates · Victim misidentification data
Data compiled from Freedom of Information requests submitted to police forces across England and Wales by multiple researchers and journalists, including Public Interest Lawyers and Byline Times (2023–2025).
| Year | Total UK Police Compensation | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| 2019/20 | £14.2m+ | Baseline year — partial data from 41 forces |
| 2020/21 | £16.8m+ | — |
| 2021/22 | £29.3m | Highest recorded single year |
| 2022/23 | £22.5m | Some forces provided partial year data |
| 2023/24 | £18.2m | Highest single-year figure in more recent data |
| Five-year aggregate (41 forces) | £79.4m+ | Source: FOI data, Public Interest Lawyers / Byline Times analysis |
Individual force data varies significantly depending on force size, claims culture, and recording practice.
| Force | Period | Payout / Claims | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Metropolitan Police | 2023/24 | Largest single force; 39 individual settlements over £15k in 6 months | MPS FOI disclosure, Nov 2023 |
| West Yorkshire Police | 2021–2023 | Multiple six-figure payouts; wrongful arrest and data protection categories | FOI / PIL research |
| Greater Manchester Police | 2019–2023 | Among top five highest-paying forces nationally | PIL / Byline Times |
| Avon & Somerset | 2019–2023 | Significant property damage and arrest-related claims | PIL / Byline Times |
| Merseyside Police | 2019–2023 | Consistent payout levels; data protection and wrongful arrest | PIL / Byline Times |
| Claim Type | Typical Range | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Property damage (inc. forced entry) | £100 – £5,000 | Most frequent category nationally |
| Wrongful arrest / false imprisonment | £1,000 – £15,000+ | Second most common; significant variation by force |
| Data protection / UK GDPR breach | £500 – £5,000 | Rising category as digital evidence expands |
| Assault / excessive force | £2,000 – £30,000+ | Includes custody-related incidents |
| Serious misconduct | £10,000 – £50,000+ | Fewer cases; higher individual values |
Sources: Public Interest Lawyers FOI research (2025); Byline Times analysis of 41 forces (April 2023); Metropolitan Police FOI disclosures (2023–24).
Live Intelligence
Live feeds require a desktop browser
The Justice Committee scrutinises the work of the Ministry of Justice and related bodies. It is currently conducting legislative scrutiny of the Courts and Tribunals Bill.
Latest news from Justice Committee → Courts and Tribunals Bill scrutiny →Misconduct999 tracks police misconduct hearings across all 43 forces in near real-time, publishing daily hearing reports, force archives, and original FOI research.
Latest hearings at Misconduct999 → @M999Wire on X →The 2025-2028 PEEL inspection cycle is now underway, with reports publishing on a rolling basis from April 2026. Every force in England and Wales will be inspected. Reports graded as requiring improvement or inadequate for protecting vulnerable people are directly relevant to VNS's evidence base. Suffolk Constabulary was inspected in April 2026 — report pending.
All PEEL reports → Latest HMICFRS publications →The Independent Office for Police Conduct oversees the police complaints system in England and Wales. Latest publications include force complaint statistics and investigation outcomes.
IOPC latest on GOV.UK → policeconduct.gov.uk →The 2025-2028 PEEL inspection cycle is now underway. VNS tracks every published report, flagging grades for protecting vulnerable people, investigating crime, and any specific findings on digital evidence handling. These grades are evidence of the standard forces are required to meet — and whether they are meeting it.
Three reports published so far in the new cycle (March to April 2026), covering Kent, Humberside and Derbyshire. Reports roll across all 43 forces through to 2028. Suffolk Constabulary was inspected in April 2026 — report pending. All PEEL reports on HMICFRS →
Kent Police receives a broadly adequate report in the first new cycle assessment. No requires improvement or inadequate grades. Previous cycle noted some shortcomings in responding to the public and domestic violence protection orders.
Kent on HMICFRS →HMICFRS found Derbyshire Constabulary's response to incidents involving children is poor. Full grades and detailed findings pending. Directly relevant to VNS's monitoring of forces' handling of vulnerable people.
Derbyshire on HMICFRS →One of the first reports under the new 2025-2028 framework. The requires improvement grade for safeguarding is directly relevant to VNS's evidence base on forces' handling of vulnerable people. The new framework introduces fraud and custody as graded areas for the first time.
Read the full report →Inspected April 2026. Report pending publication — expected summer/autumn 2026. Previous cycle (2023-25): inadequate for responding to the public, requires improvement for protecting vulnerable people and managing offenders.
Accountability
Police misconduct proceedings and IOPC complaints data are a matter of public record. We track national trends and link to authoritative sources. We do not publish details of individual ongoing investigations.
The IOPC's most recent annual data (April 2024–March 2025) records the highest number of complaints since the watchdog began collecting data under current legislation.
Misconduct999 is an independent investigative news agency that tracks police misconduct hearings, disciplinary outcomes, and criminal proceedings involving officers across all UK forces in near real-time.
It publishes daily hearing reports, force-by-force archives, and conducts original FOI research — including forcing the MOD Police to release 21 previously unpublished hearing determinations after exposing a transparency gap in early 2026.
Police misconduct hearings are separate from and independent of criminal proceedings. They apply a civil standard of proof ("on the balance of probabilities") rather than the criminal standard.
In August 2025, the IOPC published force responses to the Suzy Lamplugh Trust super complaint on police handling of stalking. All 43 forces were required to publish action plans following 29 recommendations.
VNS tracks these responses as part of our ongoing monitoring. The super complaint addressed failures to protect stalking victims — a distinct but related issue to the wrongful prosecution of actual victims that is our primary focus.
Help & Information
This is not legal advice. If you are currently facing criminal charges, seek qualified legal representation as a first priority.
What happened and what comes next.
How it should be handled — and how it often isn't.
What they are, and how they are misused.
The process and its limitations.
The prosecution must disclose material that assists your defence.
Being charged does not extinguish your victimisation.
Links & Resources
National stalking awareness charity. Operates the National Stalking Helpline and submitted the landmark super complaint on police response to stalking (2022–2024).
suzylamplugh.org →The largest domestic abuse organisation in England. Operates the National Domestic Abuse Helpline (0808 2000 247, free and available 24 hours). Provides refuge, outreach and advocacy services across the country.
refuge.org.uk →Specialist national charity founded by Laura Richards in 2013 to support high-risk victims of stalking in England and Wales. Provides accredited Independent Stalking Advocacy Caseworkers (ISACs) and a coordinated community response.
paladinservice.co.uk →Kent-based specialist stalking charity providing Independent Stalking Advocacy Caseworkers, training for professionals, and cyberstalking clinics. Co-founded the National Stalking Helpline. Offices at Tonbridge Castle.
protectionagainststalking.org →Specialist domestic abuse charity supporting adults, children and young people across Norfolk and Suffolk. Established 1974. Operates 12 safe houses and commissioned by Suffolk PCC to provide the Independent Domestic Violence Advocacy service in Suffolk. Helpline: 0300 561 0077.
leewaysupport.org →Founded by twins Verity and Lucy Nevitt following legal action by an alleged abuser seeking to silence them. Campaigns to change how sexual violence cases are tried and gathers data on how abusers weaponise civil litigation. A close ally in the fight against DARVO and legal abuse.
thegeminiproject.org →The full published report, all 29 recommendations, and every force action plan from the HMICFRS/IOPC/College of Policing investigation into policing of stalking.
GOV.UK publication →The 2024 study on digital forensics across the criminal justice system. The most comprehensive research to date. DOI: 10.25398/rd.northumbria.25395655
Read the full report →The independent body overseeing the police complaints system in England and Wales. First point of escalation after PSD.
policeconduct.gov.uk →Human rights and civil liberties organisation. Works on police accountability, surveillance, criminal justice, and the right to a fair trial.
libertyhumanrights.org.uk →Free platform for making FOI requests to UK public bodies. All requests and responses published publicly, building a searchable national record.
whatdotheyknow.com →Your MP can raise concerns with the IOPC, Home Office, and MoJ, and table parliamentary questions to force public answers on systemic failures.
parliament.uk →PCCs oversee their force's complaint handling and can raise systemic concerns directly with Chief Constables.
apccs.police.uk →Free, independent advice on legal rights, complaints, and benefits. A practical first step if you don't yet have legal representation.
citizensadvice.org.uk →Get In Touch
For media, research collaboration, or general questions about our work:
info@victimnotsuspect.org
We welcome engagement from parliamentarians, researchers, and policy professionals working on criminal justice reform, digital evidence standards, and victim rights.
We are not solicitors and cannot provide legal advice. If you are currently facing charges, seek representation first. Our Help & Information section provides a starting point.
If you have experienced the failures we document, we may be able to include anonymised accounts in our research — subject to your case not being active. We will never publish identifying information without explicit consent.