Research was conducted with very high-risk victims of domestic violence to determine their levels of revictimization one year after being referred to a Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) and their perceptions of this type of intervention. The MARACs provide increased and ongoing communication between agencies and victims, risk assessments, advocacy to victims, help translating policy into action, and help in holding perpetrators to account. More than 4 in 10 victims reported no further violence one year after the MARAC. Nearly all victims first attributed responsibility for ending the violence to themselves and then acknowledged the importance of having multiagency support once they were ready to change their situations. This research reveals that taking a holistic multiagency approach to domestic violence can reduce recidivism, even among the population most at risk.

This paper presents findings from the All Wales Hate Crime Project. Most hate crime research has focused on discrete victim types in isolation. For the first time, internationally, this paper examines the psychological and physical impacts of hate crime across seven victim types drawing on quantitative and qualitative data. It contributes to the hate crime debate in two significant ways: (1) it provides the first look at the problem in Wales and (2) it provides the first multi-victim-type analysis of hate crime, showing that impacts are not homogenous across victim groups. The paper provides empirical credibility to the impacts felt by hate crime victims on the margins who have routinely struggled to gain support.

Proportionality is a key principle of EU law. However, in spite of procedural requirements intended to ensure the full integration of proportionality as a design principle in EU law, the European Union continues to pass disproportionate counterterrorism laws. If proportionality is a fundamental constitutional principle of the European Union, and if lawmaking processes at EU level have been designed expressly with this in mind, then why do the EU’s counterterrorism laws consistently raise issues of disproportionate interference with rights? Taking as a case study the passage of the EU Directive on Combating Terrorism, this article argues that at least part of the answer lies in the curtailment and adjustment, in the counterterrorism field, of lawmaking processes that are designed to be participatory, evidence-based, and informed by proportionality.