Evidence from the SEREDA project for a consultation on improving victims' experiences of the justice system

Professor Jenny Phillimore and Dr Sandra Pertek for the SEREDA team, University of Birmingham: j.a.phillimore@bham.ac.uk

The SEREDA (sexual and gender-based violence against refugees from displacement to arrival) project has collected evidence about the SGBV experiences of forced migrants. By forced migrants we refer to persons whose movement is involuntary or coerced. Between 2018-2020, researchers at the University of Birmingham, interviewed 68 forced migrant sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) victims, and 26 service providers working with victims in England. Victims interviewed included men, women and LGBTQIA+ forced migrants from the Middle-East and North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa. Service providers included clinicians, project workers and managers from the public sector and NGOs. Forced migrants in the UK experience multiple forms of violence, including sexual, physical, psychological, economic, and a failure to meet their basic needs.

We use the evidence from our study to respond to the proposals in the Victims Bill and to argue the case for all victims to be protected and supported regardless of their immigration status.

Read the full report


We welcome the Government’s groundbreaking proposals and the recognition of the huge potential for changing the lives of individuals who are victims of crime. We endorse plans to support victims to rebuild their lives through accessible and professional services and to develop better tools to protect victims. We also concur that all victims must receive the treatment and services they need and be able to access a clear path if they do not receive a quality service. We are particularly delighted to see the special focus on domestic abuse, sexual crime, trafficking and modern slavery and believe the Bill offers immense potential to ease the pain of women victims of such crimes. We contend the development of the new measures would benefit from inclusion of all victims who live in the UK, regardless of their immigration status. Ensuring that they are covered by the provisions of the Bill will have a huge impact on such victims’ lives and reduce their vulnerability to further abuse and victimisation. Thus, we argue that the advent of the Bill offers a unique opportunity, through small amendments, to have a huge impact on the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in our country. In our evidence, we highlight how forced migrant victims are not given access to support and justice (reference 1, 2, 3, 5). Indeed, some are criminalised by the legal status rather than treated as victims, while others are treated inhumanely within the asylum system and denied the kinds of support offered to non-migrant victims. We believe that the Victims Bill offers an opportunity to right this wrong and ensure that ALL victims are protected, supported and given access to justice.

Chapter 1 – Meeting victims’ expectations

We note the intention to ensure the needs of “all victims of crime”. Our evidence shows that many forced migrant victims of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) are victimised because of their migration status (reference 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). Refused asylum seekers and abused spousal migrants are too fearful of reporting crimes because they believe they will be detained. This leads to a situation where perpetrators know they can act with impunity. Our interviews confirm that women reporting crime have been detained. Further, those who have disclosed experiences of SGBV, including crimes within UK Government provided asylum housing or detention centres, have not been able to report that crime. Finally, we propose that “all victims” include all those victimised regardless of where the act(s) took place. We find that many forced migrants experience multiple, repeated, SGBV at the hands of different perpetrators, and yet these experiences are not considered as crimes, and appropriate services are not provided, once they disclose in the UK. Thus, we argue that the Bill explicitly states that:

  • Forced migrant SGBV survivors must be treated with the same levels of care and sensitivity as other victims in the criminal justice and immigration, and asylum systems.
  • Forced migrant victims should be safe to access the justice system without fear of arrest or detention.
  • That victimisation outside of UK jurisdiction qualifies forced migrants as victims enabling access to support and recovery services.

We welcome proposals to ensure victims are informed – “to ensure that victims can fully understand the criminal justice process, criminal justice agencies must pay due consideration to providing victims with the information they need throughout the entirety of their case, from reporting through to post-conviction”. To ensure this is possible for “all victims” we propose the Bill specifies:

  • The need to provide information in multiple languages to ensure forced migrant survivors can access relevant information.
  • That criminal justice agencies deploy an interpretation policy and ensure female interpreters are available to forced migrant women regardless of their legal status.
  • The importance of raising awareness about the criminal justice process through refugee women’s organisations and other local organisations.

We welcome proposals to ensure victims are supported – when they report a crime, the Code stipulates that victims must be referred to a service that helps them cope and recover, supported during their journey at court, and assessed as to whether they need any specialised assistance, such as eligibility for special measures. We propose the Bill specifies:

  • The need for referrals to funded specialist migrant-sensitive services to support coping and recovery for forced migrant survivors, especially when disclosing their victimisation of SGBV in the immigration system, e.g. asylum interviews.
  • Provision of training and support for the mainstream organisations to develop gender and trauma sensitivity to enable them to work with forced migrant SGBV survivors.
  • Forced migrant survivors with no recourse to public funds (NRPF) conditions, refused asylum seekers and undocumented migrants should be able to access essential services too, enabling them to be protected from further victimisation and recover from abuse, regardless of their status.

Chapter 2 – Improving oversight and driving better performance

We applaud the ambition to create an easy-to-use, transparent process for victims to raise complaints about their experience. We propose the Bill ensures:

  • The process is accessible to non-English speaking victims.
  • Awareness about the complaints procedures, and how these will not result in retribution by authorities should be raised among users by providing information in multiple languages.
  • Enabling victims fearful to contact authorities, because of their legal status, to file complaints without being subject to immigration sanctions.

We agree it is important to ensure that victims’ voices drive improvements of their experiences, providing them with the opportunity to feedback at key and regular points in the lifecycle of their case and across criminal justice agencies. We suggest the Bill ensures:

  • Feedback mechanisms are accessible to non-English speaking victims.

Oversight mechanisms and structures

We welcome the attention to rape survivors within the criminal justice system. The Bill should:

  • Develop measures for forced migrant rape survivors who are fearful to access the criminal justice system due to their legal status, lack of awareness of how to access the justice system, and unaware that they are victims of domestic violence, trafficking, and modern slavery. These should include provision of information about these crimes to every woman entering the UK on a visa, in their mother tongue.

We welcome the position of the Victims’ Commissioner being seen alongside that of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, provided for by the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, with both playing a key part in overseeing and monitoring the provision of domestic abuse services in England and Wales. In the SEREDA project no respondent was aware of the Domestic Violence Rule and many women stayed in abusive and exploitative relationships because their abuser used their legal status to threaten them with detention or deportation if they reported the abuse (reference 3). They were often unaware that they had been the victim of a crime. We argue the Bill should make provisions to:

  • Raise awareness of the Domestic Violence Rule among forced migrant victims
  • Ensure support is available to victims of domestic abuse dependent on spousal visas and family reunion policy through women’s refugee organisations and other local organisations
  • Recognise and develop special measures to access and protect:
    -Victims who cannot leave abusive relationships because they have no recourse to public funds and are not permitted to work.
    -Women remaining in abusive marriages believing they would be deported and shamed if they divorced.
    - Those who were prostituted or forced into domestic servitude by husbands who tricked them into coming to the UK and are unaware they have been trafficked and can seek support.

HMICFRS’s assessment framework for police forces looks at how good the force’s service for victims of crime is, how good the force is at engaging with the people it serves and treating them fairly, appropriately and respectfully, and how good the force is at protecting vulnerable people. We welcome the use of the framework but ask that the Bill facilitates:

  • Training police forces on forced migrant vulnerabilities to SGBV and key concerns of the victims of different legal statuses.
  • Ensuring all victims of SGBV are treated with dignity by police forces regardless of their immigration status.

What government action might addressWe welcome the exploration of measures that could be taken to improve PCCs’ commissioning of support services and collaboration and data-sharing at a local level to ensure agencies are effectively empowered to drive improvements for victims in their area. We propose the Bill enables:

  • Developing mechanisms to prevent victims from having to make multiple disclosures to different stakeholders and consider safe data sharing protocols to minimise risks of re-traumatisation.
  • Introduction, and raising awareness of, a firewall between statutory services, the Police and UK Visa and Immigration, so victims feel sufficiently safe to access services.

We support consideration of where the Government can do more to bolster existing functions to enable a greater focus on and a more consistent approach towards assessing and improving the service delivery to victims. We propose the Bill ensures that services are made available to all victims regardless of immigration status. We found that UKVI contracted accommodation and services did not protect forced migrants from victimisation or meet the support needs of those victimised. Victims were frequently and erroneously denied access to medical care. We ask that the Bill proposes:

  • All UKVI contracts mandate the delivery of gender-sensitive services with mechanisms to ensure these are implemented.
  • Implementation of safety audits of asylum accommodation that attend to gender sensitivity and implement accountability mechanisms to ensure post-inspection improvements where there are risks or reports of victimisation.
  • Ensure all victims can register with a GP and access medical and psychological support services.

We concur on the importance of considering options for more effectively collating victim data and ensuring it is reported in detail on a regular basis. It is important to note because of fear of disclosing victimisation to authorities, much crime against forced migrants is not reported (reference 3). Further, it is not possible to disaggregate data by legal status, meaning it is impossible to identify groups at high risk of victimisation. Thus, we propose the Bill mandates:

  • Disaggregation of data by the legal status of the victims to develop evidence-based interventions and respond to legal vulnerabilities of victims that undermine their access to justice and recovery support.
  • Ensuring level of demand for services is recorded and service providers can access funds to cover their costs, especially in poorly funded specialist but grassroots organisations.
  • Develop recording mechanisms that are systematised and account for the complex and enduring nature of SGBV experiences of victims; record multiple SGBV crimes occurring at different points in the UK and overseas.

In response to Question 11: a) Do you think the current inspectorate frameworks and programmes adequately focus on and prioritise victims’ issues and experiences and collaborate effectively across the criminal justice system to do so? Our evidence indicates:

  • The victimisation of forced migrants is overlooked. They struggle to access the criminal justice system due to their legal status, the ongoing psychological impacts of violence, and socio-economic circumstances.
  • The criminal justice system needs to better coordinate with the Home Office to support forced migrant victims and ensure that SGBV victims going through asylum processes are treated with the same dignity and sensitivity as all victims of SGBV.

Embedding the victim’s voice

We believe it is important that local advisory panels offer victims an opportunity to feed into the delivery of services. We argue the Bill should encourage such panels to engage widely, including with forced migrant victims and the community organisations that support them.

In response to Question 18: a) What data should criminal justice agencies collect about victims’ experiences, and at what key points in the process?

  • Data should be collected from forced migrant victims of SGBV about their victimisation in the UK and overseas during initial screenings and as they disclose in asylum interviews and through reports of sexual and other victimisation within the UK.
  • Data is needed about the barriers in access and experiences of the criminal justice system for forced migrants of various legal statuses (victims of domestic violence, sexual violence and modern slavery).

Chapter 3 – Supporting victims of crime

We welcome that your vision is for all victims of crime – and particularly those of traumatic crimes like domestic abuse, sexual violence and other forms of serious violence – to have the right support at the right time to recover and rebuild their lives. Our evidence shows that forced migrants do not receive support from statutory services. Those that do access support are helped by small, under-funded organisations. We argue:

  • The vision needs to ensure all victims can access support without discrimination based on immigration status.

We endorse the aspiration for clear pathways to access and seamless movement between NHS health services and third sector support services, which can often provide more holistic support for victims. We support ensuring that tailored services provide the right support at the right time and are available where appropriate, so that all victims, no matter who they are, feel able to access support and that these services are a key part of the support landscape. We believe that effective collaboration between those commissioning and providing services will mean the right services are available to meet victims’ needs. However, our evidence shows that at the current time there is no collaboration between commissioners and those organisations supporting (reference 3). We propose that the Bill:

  • Sets out pathways to services for forced migrant victims of domestic violence, trafficking and modern-day slavery, regardless of their legal status expanding provisions beyond those set out in the National Referral Mechanism.
  • That Commissioners fund grassroots specialist services to provide support to forced migrant victims.

Background and where we are now

We agree that support for victims, particularly of traumatic crimes like domestic abuse, sexual violence and other serious violent crimes, is essential to help them cope and recover. Our evidence (reference 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) also supports your assertion that these crimes can have long-term effects on victims’ psychological, emotional and physical wellbeing. We interviewed many women victims whose wellbeing was hugely undermined by past and ongoing experiences. In terms of the Bill, it is:

  •  Important to recognise the accumulative traumas of multiple crimes. In the context of forced migration, there is a need to account for the long-term effects of incidents of violence occurring at different points of refugee journeys and life courses (in the UK and overseas).
  • Necessary to acknowledge that forced migrant victims without support suffer from severe psychological distress (anxiety, depression) and untreated physical and psychological symptoms (culminating at worst in suicidal ideation), impacting their ability to integrate in the UK.

We welcome the proposal to offer advisory services providing information to victims on a range of topics to support them through or out of their current situation. However, the Bill offers an opportunity to:

  • Call for the use of multiple languages and communication methods to reach forced migrant victims.

We welcome the proposal to provide advocacy services providing support to victims to re-establish safety, reduce risk, manage specific needs and provide emotional support, which can also include advocacy through the criminal justice system. Forced migrant victims of SGBV cannot access such services. We argue that these and recovery and support work must be accessible to all. The Bill should mandate for:

  • Advocacy services to be accessible to all victims, regardless of immigration status – irregular migrants, undocumented, persons dependent on spousal visas etc.
  • Provision of support in initial accommodations and hotels for asylum seekers offering information on recovery and support services for victims of SGBV.

We agree health services also play a vital role in supporting victims’ mental and physical health needs, including mental health services and sexual assault referral centres (SARCs), which provide people with acute healthcare and support, follow-up services and direct access or referral to an ISVA. However, our evidence shows that forced migrant victims are not able to access such services and clinicians feel ill-equipped to provide them (reference 3). There is also a lack of specialist counselling services for forced migrants with those interviewed in the asylum system repeatedly asked to disclose distressing experiences resulting in re-traumatisation without any access to counselling or other support. SEREDA data also indicates the damage that asylum processes do to victims, through expecting repeated disclosure and unavailable evidence, leading to experiencing re-victimisation (reference 6). Thus we propose the Bill includes:

  • Provision of counselling for all victims regardless of migration status.
  • Proposals to increase NHS capacity to offer specialist mental health support to forced migrant victims, especially around complex and multiple trauma associated with repeated victimisation.
  • Training for individuals, caseworkers and clinicians working with forced migrant victims around how to support disclosure and support recovery.

Demand for services

We welcome the consultation’s acknowledgement that the commissioning landscape to provide support for these sexual violence and domestic abuse victims is complex and has a tendency to overlap. We also agree that support offers across local areas vary and that this can lead to a ‘postcode lottery’ of available services. We find that UKVI dispersal policies impact forced migrant victims’ access to services. Dispersal and re-dispersal away from support networks undermine psychological wellbeing and important connections with friends, NGOs and/or healthcare providers (reference 1, 2, 3, 5). We propose that special measures are needed to ensure forced migrant victims can access services. We suggest there is a need to:

  • Review dispersal policies making decisions based on continuity of care, access to services and maintenance of support networks for forced migrant victims.

Tailored services

We applaud the acknowledgement that tailored or specialised services can be instrumental for certain victims. The Home Office’s call for evidence on violence against women and girls did indeed find a need for an improved, ‘by and for’ trauma-informed provision of services. We found that forced migrant victims, in many instances, were unable to access services capable of addressing their very specific needs. Some were unable to access any kind of medical care for years and endured cycles of abuse as they were placed inside and outside of the asylum system. Our service provider interviews indicate that victims often accessed their services “when it was too late”: they were referred to the services once they were in personal crisis by which time they were extremely unwell (reference 5). Thus, we ask that the Bill outline provision of:

  • Trauma-informed services that can address complex trauma from across displacement experiences (flight, transit, living in camps etc.).
  • Services for destitute, forced migrant survivors, including housing and subsistence, so they are not exposed to further abuse while homeless and desperate.
  • Pre- and post- asylum interview counselling for SGBV victims.
  • Provision of female clinicians, interpreters, caseworkers and asylum accommodation staff and single gender housing for uncoupled asylum-seeking women.
  • Access to housing and welfare for spousal migrants escaping abusive relationships – with a lower burden of proof to invoke the Domestic Violence Rule.

We endorse your findings that identity or personal characteristics act as barriers to accessing support or other services. We find that intersecting identities, such as migrant status, can pose additional barriers to accessing support services. The SEREDA Project data provides evidence that victims with irregular migrant status (especially NRPF) were unable to access support services (especially health and housing services) (reference 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). The majority received no support. Individuals who were refused asylum seekers and undocumented migrants were too frightened to seek medical assistance or report abuse to the police, as they feared they would be detained and/or deported. The Bill could outline provision of:

  • •Welfare, housing and specialised medical support for victims regardless of immigration status.

Pathways and coordination

We also find the inability to access the right support at the right time can lead to the compounding of trauma and contribute to symptoms deteriorating over time. Many of the victims we interviewed had experienced repeated incidents of SGBV over time and place and at the hands of different perpetrators and over this period did not receive any support (reference 3). Indeed, once in the UK asylum system, they experienced different forms of structural violence, including aggressive interviewing, interviews which progressed over many hours and accusations of lying, which re-traumatised victims and resulted in some cases in further mental health conditions, suicide ideation and PTSD (reference 1, 2, 6). The SGBV impacts were compounded by ongoing stress associated with uncertain status for those awaiting the outcome of their asylum application. The need to repeatedly recount distressing experiences of SGBV and torture to evidence their asylum case often left victims feeling re-traumatised but without the support that is generally offered to non-migrant victims of SGBV during and after disclosure (reference 3).

What government action might address

We agree that local commissioners could work together to strategically target funding, ensuring that the right services are commissioned to meet local needs. It is particularly important that in asylum dispersal areas and the vicinity of the hotels increasingly used to house asylum seekers, commissioners fund organisations to extend the support available to forced migrant victims.

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 in placing a duty on local authorities in relation to providing support to victims of domestic abuse and their children residing in safe accommodation, offers potential for supporting forced migrant victims. However, the Home Office needs to provide additional resources so that individuals with NRPF who are victims of DV can access housing and other support.

In response to Question 25: How could the commissioning landscape be better brought together to encourage and improve partnership working and holistic delivery of victim services for: a) all victims of domestic abuse, b) all victims of sexual violence, c) all victims of other serious violence, d) children and young people who are victims of these crimes?

  • Commissioning criteria need to require local authorities and service providers to ensure special measures for forced migrant victims through working with specialist migrant organisations.
  • Improve coordination within and between mainstream and refugee organisations by strengthening referral pathways.
  • Mainstream SGBV and forced migration awareness to increase commissioners’ and providers’ sensitivity to SGBV and support identification and provision for forced migrant victims.

In response to Question 26:

a) What can the Government do to ensure that commissioners are adequately responding and implementing the expertise of smaller, ‘by and for’ organisations in line with local need?

  • Work with specialist organisations at the national level to develop checklists that local commissioners can use to ensure they incorporate the expertise of smaller organisations.
  • Develop a source of funding to build the capacity of such grassroots organisations to engage in commissioning processes.
  • Develop forums in which specialised migrant organisations can work with the wider DV sector in local areas.
  • Commission audits and hearings on service delivery at the local level to check that provision includes grassroots experts.

b) Should national commissioning play a role in the commissioning framework for smaller, ‘by and for’ organisations? Yes – please explain why • No – please explain why

  • Yes, national commissioners should set out the expectation that local commissioners work with grassroots organisations and address the needs of all victims, which means working with specialist migrant organisations.

In response to Question 27: What can local commissioners (local authorities and PCCs) do to improve the commissioning of specialist ‘by and for’ services for their area?

  • Involve local migrant and refugee organisations and ensure consultations with forced migrant victims.

In response to Question 28:

a) What challenges exist for victims in accessing integrated support across third sector and health service provisions?

  • Lack of awareness of such services among forced migrant victims
  • Lack of specialist provision for forced migrant victims
  • Having no recourse to public funds
  • Being fearful of contacting authorities, detention and deportation by victims of irregular migrant status
  • Fears about losing custody of children if domestic violence is disclosed
  • Not knowing how to find services and/or being dispersed and redispersed away from services breaking relationships with providers who have invested much time in building trust to enable access
  • Lack of resources to pay for travel to services or inability to find or afford childcare to engage in counselling
  • Fear of encountering male service providers and interpreters
  • Concerns that disclosure of sensitive information around SGBV will result in shaming and stigmatisation.

b) What and how could practical measures or referral mechanisms be put in place to address these?

  • Enable victims with NFRP to access statutory services.
  • Ensure a firewall between services: introduce, and raise awareness of a firewall between statutory services, the Police and UK Visa and Immigration, so victims feel sufficiently safe to access services.
  • Develop online and remote referral mechanisms.
  • Ensure that all residents in initial accommodation (IA) and hotels are signposted to a GP and asylum seekers are provided with information in required languages on their right to NHS services, how to register with a GP, how to use NHS services and ability to access female clinicians.
  • Asylum housing providers and others working with forced migrants to have a duty to identify local provision and refer individuals who may be victims of SGBV.

Chapter 4 – Improving advocacy support

In response to Question 31: How do IDVAs (Independent Domestic Violence Advisors) fit into the wider network of support services available for victims of domestic abuse?

  • They could play a crucial role in facilitating access to justice for forced migrant victims who struggle to access the criminal justice system due to their legal status, mental health conditions, and socio-economic circumstances (e.g. inability to afford bus fares and lawyers).

In response to Question 32: How might defining the IDVA role impact services, other sector workers and IDVAs themselves?

  • They could have a transformational potential in filling the gaps in service provision for forced migrant victims unable to access mainstream services.

In response to Question 33: How do ISVAs (Independent Sexual Violence Advisors) fit into the wider network of support services available for victims of sexual violence?

  • ISVAs could offer vital assistance for forced migrant victims to access legal and practical support
  • ISVAs should be able to offer advice in multiple languages or be assisted by trained female interpreters experienced in working with forced migrant SGBV victims.

In response to Question 35: What are the challenges in accessing advocate services, and how can the Government support advocates to reach victims in all communities?

  • Challenges include lack of knowledge, lack of provision for forced migrants and communication barriers.
  • Information about IDVAs and ISVAs could be provided by Home Office to asylum-seeking victims post-asylum interviews and via accommodation providers.
  • Independent advocates to be invited to sit in on asylum interviews with potential SGBV victims (subject to victims’ consent) to facilitate access to justice and reduce the need for multiple disclosures.
  • Funding provided for advocates to be based in community-based and local organisations to identify and support victims.

In response to Question 36: What other advocacy roles exist that support victims of hidden crimes, such as forms of other serious violence? Please outline the functions these roles perform. To what extent are the challenges faced similar to those experienced by ISVAs and IDVAs? Are there specific barriers?

  • Refugee women’s organisations play advocacy roles and guide forced migrant victims to access justice and support, but they are hugely underfunded.
  • Refugee women advocates who have lived experience of the UK immigration and asylum systems in migrant organisations could be trained and paid to offer support roles to forced migrant victims.

In response to Question 41: How can we ensure that all non-criminal justice agencies (such as schools, doctors, emergency services) are victim aware, and what support do these agencies need in order to interact effectively with IDVAs, ISVAs or other support services?

  • Non-criminal justice agencies require training in SGBV and forced migrant vulnerabilities.
  • Implement training for health professionals and support personnel to enable them to identify and work with SGBV forced migrant victims.
  • Ensure clinical training covers the specific vulnerabilities and needs of forced migrants and especially SGBV victims and pathways to support services.

Equality considerations

In response to Question 49: Have we correctly identified the range and extent of the equalities impacts under this consultation in the equality statement? Please give reasons and supply evidence of further equalities impacts that are not covered as appropriate.

  • The impact of immigration status on access to justice and support must be included in equality considerations.
  • The Bill should account for all victims regardless of immigration status. Without protection and the prospect of criminal actions against perpetrators, they will continue to act with impunity.
  • Justice systems and the immigration and asylum systems should have a duty of care to all victims regardless of immigration status and regardless of where victimisation took place.

Evidence from the SEREDA project in peer-reviewed articles and reports

  1. Goodson, L., Darkal, H., Hassan, P., Taal, S., Altaweel, R. and Phillimore, J. (2020) Forced Migration and Sexual and Gender-based Violence: the experiences of forced migrants from SubSaharan Africa in the UK. IRiS Working Paper Series No. 44/2020, Birmingham: Institute for Research into Superdiversity, University of Birmingham.
  2. Goodson, L., Darkal, H., Hassan, P., Taal, S., Altaweel, R. and Phillimore, J. (2021) Conceptualising experiences of sexual and gender-based violence across the refugee journey: the experiences of forced migrants from the MENA region in the UK. IRiS Working Paper Series, No. 46/2021, Birmingham: Institute for Research into Superdiversity, University of Birmingham.
  3. Pertek, S., Phillimore, J. and Goodson, L. with Stevens, A., Thomas, S., Hassan, P., Darkal, H., Taal, S. and Altaweel, R. (2021) Forced migration and sexual and gender-based violence: findings from the SEREDA project in the UK. Research Report. University of Birmingham.
  4. Phillimore, J., Pertek, S., Hourani, J., H., Ozcurumez, S., Akyuz, S., Darkal, H. and Bradby, H. (2021) “We are forgotten”: Forced migration, sexual and gender-based violence and COVID-19. Violence Against Women Journal 0(0): 1-27. doi.org/10.1177/10778012211030943
  5. Thomas, S., Darkal, H. and Goodson, L. (2020) Forced migration and SGBV: Service provider perspectives from the UK. IRiS Working Paper Series, No. 34/2020, Birmingham: Institute for Research into Superdiversity. (Accessed 20 August 2021).
  6. Phillimore, J. (2021) Forced migration, sexual and gender-based violence and the UK asylum and immigration systems: findings from the SEREDA project. SEREDA Policy briefing. Birmingham: Institute for Research into Superdiversity, University of Birmingham.


Sexual and gender based violence in the refugee crisis: from displacement to arrival (SEREDA)