Police frequently close domestic abuse and stalking cases without proper investigation. Here’s what NFA really means — and how victims can fight it.

When Police Say “No Further Action”: What Victims Need to Know, and How to Challenge It

Across the UK, thousands of domestic abuse, stalking and coercive control cases are closed every year with the same three words:

“No Further Action.”

For most victims, it feels like a verdict.
Like a judgment on their credibility.
Like a message: “We don’t believe you.”

But here is the truth:

An NFA is not a finding of innocence.
It is a failure of investigation.

In many cases we see at 1VAA, NFA decisions are issued without:

reviewing all evidence
interviewing key witnesses
assessing digital evidence
understanding coercive control
identifying stalking patterns
risk-assessing children
applying the law correctly
escalation to specialist units

Victims are left unsafe, unprotected, and silenced, often with the perpetrator feeling empowered by a decision that never should have been made.

This article explains why NFAs happen, what the police should have done, and how victims can challenge them with help.

Why Police Issue “NFA” So Easily

Many victims are shocked to learn that NFA decisions are often:

administrative, not investigative
made due to time pressure
based on incomplete information
decided by officers with limited domestic abuse training
influenced by misunderstanding of coercive control
shaped by resource shortages
reliant on incorrect crime coding

The CPS reported in 2023 that domestic abuse cases were frequently closed due to “lack of evidence,” but survivor files later showed:

evidence was provided but ignored
patterns of abuse were not analysed
digital abuse was misunderstood
coercive control was minimised
safeguarding was not considered

In stalking cases, the situation is worse.

Approximately 80% of stalking victims report the police treated their case as a “relationship dispute” rather than a crime, even when the behaviour aligns with homicide red flags.

What an NFA REALLY Means

An NFA simply means:

“The police have chosen not to continue the investigation.”
It does NOT mean:
✘ the perpetrator is innocent
✘ the victim lied
✘ the behaviour wasn’t abusive
✘ the evidence wasn’t strong enough
✘ the case is closed forever

NFAs can be:

reviewed
overturned
re-opened
escalated
challenged

Victims are rarely told this.

Common Police Failures Leading to NFA

1VAA repeatedly sees the same mistakes:

1. Police didn’t collect all available evidence

In many cases, police fail to collect all available evidence, significantly weakening investigations and outcomes. Crucial material such as screenshots provided by victims is ignored, messages are not properly downloaded or preserved, and devices like phones or laptops are not seized for forensic examination. CCTV that could corroborate stalking, harassment, or breaches of bail is often not identified or collected in time. These omissions fragment the evidence, place an unfair burden on victims to repeatedly relive abuse, and reduce the likelihood of building a robust case that accurately reflects the seriousness and pattern of offending.

2. Coercive control not understood

Coercive control is often poorly understood because officers tend to look for physical violence or single criminal incidents, rather than recognising a pattern of repeated or varied actions that cause harm over time. Behaviours such as intimidation, isolation, monitoring, and restriction are frequently minimised or dismissed when viewed in isolation, despite their cumulative impact in dominating, manipulating, and stripping away a person’s freedom and autonomy. This incident-focused approach fails to reflect the reality of coercive control, allowing sustained abuse to go unrecognised, under-recorded, and inadequately addressed within risk assessments and investigations.

3. Stalking coded as “harassment”

Stalking is often wrongly coded as harassment, which downgrades the risk and weakens cases by treating a serious pattern of fixation and pursuit as isolated or low-level incidents. This misclassification hides key stalking indicators such as escalation, obsession, repeated breaches of boundaries, and the victim’s fear, making t harder for police and courts to recognise danger, apply appropriate safeguards, or intervene early. As a result, perpetrators face fewer consequences, evidence is fragmented and victims are left exposed to escalating harm. This is a national problem, reflecting systemic gaps in understanding and recording stalking behaviour, and it undermines public safety by failing to identify and disrupt high-risk patterns before they escalate further.

4. No DASH risk assessment

DASH risk assessments and reports are too often rushed, incomplete, or treated as a tick-box exercise, with advocates witnessing officers quickly completing questions on mobile apps without properly exploring victims’ experiences. This approach fails to capture patterns, escalation, coercive control, and stalking behaviours, instead reducing complex and dangerous situations to fragmented answers. When officers do not take time to ask follow-up questions, record victims’ own words, or collate supporting evidence, the resulting DASH assessment can significantly understate risk. These shortcomings weaken safeguarding decisions, limit access to specialist support, and leave victims unprotected at critical moments.

5. Perpetrator interview taken at face value

Perpetrator interviews are too often taken at face value, with calm, articulate abusers or those who present themselves as the victim being believed over traumatised victims. This imbalance fails to account for the effects of fear, coercion, and trauma on a victim’s ability to communicate clearly or consistently. When officers prioritise a perpetrator’s composed narrative without testing it against evidence, patterns of abuse, or contextual history, dangerous behaviour is minimised and accountability is lost. This dynamic reinforces power imbalances and allows coercive or manipulative offenders to evade scrutiny while victims are unfairly doubted.

6. No supervisor review before closing

In some forces, cases are still closed by junior officers without any meaningful supervisory review, allowing serious risks and investigative gaps to go unchecked. Without oversight, poor evidence gathering, misclassification of offences, and flawed risk assessments are not challenged or corrected before cases are finalised. This lack of supervision undermines consistency and accountability, increases the likelihood of premature case closure, and leaves victims without protection or recourse, particularly in complex cases involving coercive control, stalking, or repeat offending.

How Victims Can Challenge an NFA

Victims can challenge an NFA by:

1. Requesting a case review

Every force has a right-to-review procedure.

2. Submitting new or previously overlooked evidence

1VAA often discovers evidence victims didn’t know could be included.

3. Demonstrating patterns of coercive control or stalking

Police often miss the pattern because they only assess single incidents.

4. Escalating to senior officers or domestic abuse leads

A well-documented challenge forces supervision.

5. Filing a complaint about investigative failure

Professional Standards must log these.

6. Re-coding stalking or coercive control correctly

Incorrect coding is one of the biggest barriers to prosecution.

How 1VAA Supports Victims After an NFA

1VAA specialises in:

building evidence chronologies
identifying missed safeguarding indicators
mapping coercive control patterns
analysing risk
preparing police escalation reports
challenging incorrect decisions
requesting re-opening of cases
filing formal complaints
ensuring officers follow the law
supporting victims through every stage

Victims often tell us:

“You saw things in my evidence that nobody ever explained before.”
“I didn’t know the police could be challenged.”
“I finally feel like someone is on my side.”

This is what we do.