Related Downloads
Additional
Appendix 2 – Status of recommendations
Inspection of the management by COPFS of criminal allegations against the police (2021)[63]
Recommendation 1: COPFS should review its policy and practice in relation to the involvement of complainers in the process for managing criminal allegations against the police.
Status: Achieved
Rationale: Since our last annual report COPFS has introduced a revised strategy for communication with complainers and bereaved nearest relatives. The strategy sets out how case preparers liaise with complainers at various stages and how to proactively seek engagement if there is no response to letter communication. COPFS is now monitoring contact and response rates.
Recommendation 3: COPFS should develop guidance for the police on the investigation and reporting of criminal allegations against the police, as well as guidance for its own staff on the handling of such cases.
Status: Achieved
Rationale: A tripartite agreement between COPFS, Police Scotland and the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner (PIRC) covering allegations of breaches of Articles 3 and 5 of European Convention on Human Rights was in place at the time of our last annual report. This agreement provides guidance on investigation and reporting of allegations. Since the last annual report agencies, other than Police Scotland, that report to CAAP-D have been provided with agreed guidance on notification and reporting timescales.
There is guidance on COPFS systems for off-duty allegations that reflects the right to private life of Police Scotland staff.
Recommendation 4: COPFS should make more information publicly available about its role in investigating and prosecuting criminal allegations against the police. COPFS should also publish data regarding its handling of such allegations, and work towards gathering and publishing data that is disaggregated by race and other characteristics.
Status: In progress
Rationale: Since the last annual report COPFS has published statistical information on cases received and outcomes, compliance with timescale targets and the outcomes of victims’ right to review. A policy and procedure have been created to track outcomes in respect of victims with protected characteristics. Equality and diversity questionnaires are now issued to complainers. Once a full year of data has been ingathered COPFS intend to publish this data. This will be considered as part of our 2025-26 annual report.
Recommendation 14: COPFS should work with its partners to introduce an electronic reporting system for criminal allegations against the police.
Status: Not achieved
Rationale: In order for this recommendation to be achieved, an electronic reporting system requires to be implemented. It is hoped that this will be included as part of the development of wider next generation case marking systems.
Recommendation 17: COPFS should provide guidance to the police on ensuring that SPRs are completed with the correct occupation information.
Status: Achieved
Rationale: In August 2024 COPFS requested that Police Scotland ensure completion of SPRs with occupation information. As a result, Police Scotland issued a memorandum to staff to this effect. COPFS are unaware of any SPR’s that have been submitted since the issue of the memorandum without the appropriate information but intend to carry out further reconciliation work with Police Scotland to ensure that SPR’s remain fully completed in this regard.
Inspection of COPFS practice in relation to sections 274 and 275 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (2022)[64]
Recommendation 1: COPFS should clearly set out its expectations of staff regarding record keeping and remind them that key decisions about a case should be recorded and that key documentation relating to a case should be imported into the relevant case file.
Status: Achieved
Rationale: Instruction issued to all staff that key decisions and key documentation should be recorded in case management system. Instruction also reflected in Chapter 9 (focusing on sexual history and character evidence) of the Sexual Offences Handbook which states copies of lodged section 275 application, court interlocutor and record of court’s ruling should be saved in case record in case management system.
For High Court cases, process desk instructions were initially developed to ensure section 275 applications added to case management system and to folders used by Crown Counsel. Subsequently, a new system for electronic reporting to Crown Counsel has been introduced ensuring all relevant personnel have access to key documents. In Local Court cases, each sheriffdom appointed a single point of contact whose duties include oversight and importation of key documentation into case records. Introduction of business codes now allows cases to be flagged as involving section 275 applications to allow management oversight.
Dip sampling of High Court cases has been carried out this year to provide assurance instructions are being followed by staff in practice. The following was noted during the exercise in the case sample:
- Section 275 applications (Crown and/or defence) were found to be saved in the case management system and in the folders used for electronic reporting to Crown Counsel, apart from one defence application
- One Crown application and two defence applications were not recorded as being sent or received in the COPFS management information system
- Two precognitions (notes of meeting to advise of the section 275 application(s) with the complainer) were not saved in the case record
COPFS intend to carry out further dip sampling of cases to ensure that these training issues have been addressed with staff.
COPFS advise that the assurance work of dip sampling of cases has been added to their quality assurance rolling agenda item at the High Court Operations Board.
Joint review of diversion from prosecution (2023)[65]
Recommendation 4: Through robust governance, community justice partnerships should improve collaboration and communication between statutory partners regarding people subject to diversion. In particular, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) should consider what more it can do to improve communication with partners at a local level.
Status: In progress
Rationale: COPFS advise that a Community Justice Group (CJG) has been established, a terms of reference agreed and meetings continue. Bulletins are shared with the Community Justice Partnership (CJP) and COPFS has sought feedback on their value/impact. This is carried on at strategic level by chair of CJG.
COPFS has also presented to Social Work Scotland (SWS) on prevention and intervention, met with local government officials and delivered a presentation at national forum on diversion.
IPS will seek sight of the terms of reference of the CJG, minutes of meetings and presentations to fully assess if this recommendation has been achieved.
Recommendation 12: COPFS should ensure that prosecutors record the reason an accused person is being referred to justice social work for an assessment of their suitability for diversion. The identifiable need in relation to which the accused person is being considered for diversion by COPFS should be noted in the referral to justice social work.
Status: In progress
Rationale: COPFS advise that a revised referral template has been issued to staff with instructions advising that the identifiable need has to be recorded on the referral.
Consideration is also being given to a digital solution e.g. pre-populated proforma template.
IPS will seek sight of the revised referral template, quality checks on compliance with the guidelines and an update on a digital solution.
Recommendation 13: COPFS should review its internal guidance on diversion to ensure it is compatible with the national guidelines on diversion, reflects current practice and provides consolidated, comprehensive guidance for staff.
Status: In progress
Rationale: A diversion page on the COPFS intranet brings together policies, instructions, case commentaries, videos, case studies and other relevant materials. The National Initial Case Processing (NICP) desk instructions relating to social work diversion are included but they link back to the older Local Court Business Process Handbook. The instructions for social work diversion are dated November 2015 and have not been updated.
COPFS advise that they will issue updated instructions to staff on publication of the revised national guidelines.
Recommendation 14: COPFS should provide training to its staff on diversion from prosecution. This should be available to all staff involved in marking and managing cases for diversion.
Status: In progress
Rationale: There is a new e-learning course on Diversion from Prosecution on the COPFS Scottish prosecution college prospectus. This is not yet active but we are advised that it will be suitable for staff across all levels, including VIA, will be mandatory for all legal trainees and legal staff in relevant areas of work will be required to complete it.
The e-learning will be released to coincide with publication of the national guidelines and revised CMIs. IPS is not sighted on the content of the training yet.
A SACRO[66] webinar and video have been added to the diversion page on the COPFS intranet since the publication of our inspection report.
Recommendation 15: COPFS should identify the most appropriate process for referring an accused person for diversion and ensure:
- the process is reflected in clear, accessible instructions for staff and communicated to justice social work
- the guidance includes direction on whether and in what circumstances justice social work should await an instruction to proceed with diversion following a positive suitability assessment
- the revised process is followed in practice
Status: In progress
Rationale: Only referrals for enhanced diversion require to wait for permission from COPFS to start work. This has been incorporated in updated instructions with process maps.
COPFS also advise there is an agreement with stakeholders to implement ‘lifetime’ management of diversion.
Proforma templates and letters have been developed.
Tools for monitoring the diversion process are yet to be agreed.
IPS will seek sight of any updated instructions, templates and letters.
Recommendation 17: COPFS and justice social work should work together to ensure that all referrals, assessments and completion reports are tracked and submitted timeously. A more robust system for following up overdue reports or responses should be put in place.
Status: In progress
Rationale: COPFS advise that a draft referral template has been produced, piloted, and disseminated. Draft assessment and completion reports were shared with the national guidelines group and have been agreed.
We are also advised that the COPFS Local Court Transformation Team is to develop a system for monitoring acknowledgement of diversion referrals, including monitoring the timing for submission of assessment and completion reports and develop process for monitoring compliance/chasing up non-compliance. A dedicated ‘diversion team’ has been set up to administer all sheriff court diversion cases.
IPS is not yet sighted on the roles and responsibilities of the ‘diversion team’ or what monitoring will be put in place by the diversion team and ISD.
Recommendation 23: COPFS and justice social work should improve communication between them in support of the diversion from prosecution process. Communication is particularly important in more complex or serious cases.
Status: In progress
Rationale: COPFS has advised that contact details have been added to the national guidelines. We are advised that communication with justice social work is built into the process for complex cases and that standardised assessment and completion reports have been agreed by stakeholders. A lifetime management group is to be established to ingather feedback and manage disputes. IPS understands that the stakeholders who revised the national guidelines will sit on this group. Any issues are raised and discussed at CJG in COPFS. There is a single point of contact (SPOC) for diversion in COPFS NICP. There do not appear to be diversion SPOCs in sheriff court solemn teams or in specialist teams where a great many complex or serious cases will be dealt with.
Guidance on the situation when justice social work and COPFS cannot agree has been written into the national guidelines. IPS has not had sight of the agreed assessment and completion reports, the national guidelines, remit of the lifetime management group or minutes of meetings from the community justice group.
Recommendation 25: COPFS and justice social work should review their processes for managing diversion from prosecution to ensure they are suitable for all types of cases. In particular, the process for managing cases involving more serious offending should be sufficiently robust. The agreed processes should be reflected in guidance and training for all relevant staff.
Status: In progress
Rationale: COPFS advise that different models have been agreed and are to be included in the revised national guidelines and updated staff instructions.
We have not had sight of the functions of the revised models.
Publication of the revised national guidelines and CMIs are awaited.
IPS has not yet had sight of training materials.
Recommendation 27: The diversion partner agencies should agree how further offending by the accused person during the diversion period affects their diversion from prosecution. Where the person has been diverted in relation to more serious charges, protocols should be developed to gather and share information about further offending which should be used to inform decisions about the final prosecutorial action or whether to continue diversion.
Status: In progress
Rationale: COPFS advise that in conjunction with justice social work it was proposed that this should be assessed on a case by case basis depending on the nature of offending and this was to be included in staff instructions and national guidelines.
Updated COPFS staff instructions await publication of the revised national guidelines. IPS remains unsighted on these guidelines and we have only very recently been sighted on the draft CMIs (September 2025).
Recommendation 28: COPFS should inform justice social work of the final marking when the accused has received diversion.
Status: COPFS no longer accept this recommendation
Rationale: COPFS has legal concerns about sharing this information with justice social work. Alternatively, COPFS wishes to give feedback individually/at a system level to justice social work about how diversion is operating. COPFS are concerned about the potential for justice social work intimating a decision not to prosecute to an accused rather than COPFS – the prosecution authority – doing so.
Recommendation 29: COPFS should review when and how it communicates with the accused person in cases that have been diverted from prosecution. In particular, COPFS should:
- revise its template letters to accused persons who are being diverted from prosecution
- ensure letters are in plain English and tailored to the individual needs of the accused person
- ensure letters are sent promptly at key stages of the diversion process
- ensure this improved approach is clearly set out in the national guidelines and in COPFS policy and instructions to staff
Status: In progress
Rationale: COPFS Policy Division has identified points when the accused should be contacted and these will be included in instructions for staff along with the revised national guidelines. Letters for child accused have been reviewed by third sector for accessibility and fact sheets are to be reviewed by SOLD (an organisation which supports offenders with communication support needs).
Staff instructions are to be issued on publication of revised national guidelines.
IPS is not yet sighted on any letters or fact sheets.
Recommendation 30: COPFS should revise its approach to complainers in cases where the accused person is diverted from prosecution. The new approach should be reflected in policy and in guidance and training for staff. Complainers meeting specified criteria should be referred to Victim Information and Advice and kept informed of developments in their case.
Status: In progress
Rationale: The COPFS website contains information on diversion including obtaining victims’ views and what COPFS can tell them.[67]
There is also a section relating to communication in a ‘Statement of prosecution policy – diversion and referral to the Principal Reporter in rape and other solemn level sexual offence cases where the accused is a child’ published on COPFS website April 2025.[68] This covers communication with the victim in such cases seeking their views at the earliest opportunity and carefully considering them before a decision is made.
IPS will seek sight of the specific training materials and any quality checks to demonstrate that this guidance is being followed.
Recommendation 31: COPFS should clarify whether the Victims’ Right to Review applies in cases where the accused person has been diverted from prosecution and this information should be shared with staff and made public.
Status: In progress
Rationale: Whilst there is a diversion section on the COPFS external website which advises victims what information they are entitled to receive if an accused is diverted from prosecution and that they have a right to review such a decision to divert an accused (the diversion section also has a link to the Victims’ Right to Review section on the website) the internal COPFS guidance on Victims’ Right to Review in diversion cases is still being considered. We are advised that this is at an advanced stage but there is currently no clarity for COPFS staff on what to do should a victim seek a review in a case in which the accused is diverted from prosecution.
Recommendation 33: COPFS and justice social work should ensure assessment, diversion and outcomes are recorded accurately and consistently in line with national guidelines.
Status: In progress
Rationale: COPFS advise there has been contact with ISD regarding the potential for new charge codes but discussions are still outstanding and this work is likely to take some time.
COPFS is considering a research project to track diversion outcomes. This has been referred to justice social work for views and remains outstanding.
The prosecution of domestic abuse cases at sheriff summary level (2024)[69]
Recommendation 1(a): With regard to training of staff, COPFS should:
(a) review and streamline the content of its domestic abuse training taking into account the target audience.
Status: Achieved
Rationale: Existing training has been reviewed and strengthened. Evidence has been provided to IPS to show that all COPFS domestic abuse training has been reviewed by the Procurator Fiscal for Domestic Abuse who made recommendations to the COPFS training division.
We note that positively there have also been a number of posts on the COPFS intranet about domestic abuse training to raise awareness.
The domestic abuse ‘core hour’ has been rebranded as a foundation hour and has been updated. The one-day domestic abuse course is being incorporated into accredited prosecutor training.
Recommendation 1(b): review the take-up of mandatory and other training, and identify and address the reasons for low take-up.
Status: Substantial progress
Rationale: A review of domestic abuse training has taken place and IPS has been provided with evidence of all the improvements made. All three days of the domestic abuse accredited prosecutor course are now part of the new depute foundation programme which should help to ensure a greater chance of attendance for staff which is positive. COPFS intranet is being used to provide information/updates about training including a news article on the COPFS intranet with a new booking process for the domestic abuse core hour.
IPS has also been advised that SCM training which includes enhanced victim engagement in domestic abuse cases is being rolled out to legal staff and VIA until implementation is complete.
No statistical evidence supplied as yet to show that take up of courses has increased and that staff are being given time to attend or complete courses. IPS will require sight of data along with assurances that staff are attending training.
Recommendation 1(c): ensure that all staff managing and prosecuting domestic abuse cases and engaging with domestic abuse victims have appropriate training (including prosecutors, VIA officers and National Enquiry Point operators).
Status: In progress
Rationale: The recommendation is to ‘ensure’ that all staff have had appropriate training. COPFS require to decide what is the minimum training requirement for each role and thereafter monitor completion of training.
From the evidence provided to IPS it appears that there are inconsistencies in the approach to training across sheriffdoms.
There is scope for further assurance work be carried out and data to be provided to confirm that training is being attended by the relevant staff of all grades and roles as recommended.
Recommendation 1(d): review the domestic abuse e-learning module for VIA officers and make it mandatory.
Status: Substantial progress
Rationale: IPS has been advised that a bespoke VIA module was launched in May 2025.
Domestic abuse e-learning for VIA has been re-structured into three modules.
It was unclear to us if this training is mandatory as recommended as it is classed as both mandatory and required on the COPFS intranet. This training is also difficult for staff to find on the COPFS intranet.
We are advised that both these issues are being resolved by the Scottish Prosecution College and the COPFS corporate communications teams.
IPS require satisfactory evidence of completion of the e-learning by VIA staff.
Recommendation 2(a): In relation to the reporting of domestic abuse cases, COPFS should work with Police Scotland to:
(a) ensure that prosecutors have sufficiently detailed information on the risk to victims which can be passed on to the court when required.
Status: COPFS has classed recommendation 2 as a ‘year 2’ recommendation, to be implemented by April 2026
Status: In progress
Rationale: COPFS has revised internal guidance documents for its staff. Wider work is being carried out by COPFS with Police Scotland to improve the quality and content of SPRs. COPFS Policy division are having 4-weekly catch ups with domestic abuse police leads which is encouraging.
IPS has very recently been made aware that there has been a police-led formatting change to the existing SPR, to ensure completion of fields specifically related to domestic abuse which includes a risk assessment. COPFS advise that they have been receiving domestic abuse SPRs with the information in this format consistently from January 2025 onwards. It would be helpful to know to if the police are providing sufficient information in SPRs about risk and if/how deputes are using this information at court.
Recommendation 2(b): ensure that Standard Prosecution Reports fully address the victim’s views on court proceedings, bail conditions and non-harassment orders. Reasons for victims’ views should be fully explored and should be described, by both COPFS and Police Scotland, in appropriate and accurate language.
Status: Not achieved
Rationale: The COPFS action plan refers again to 4-weekly meetings between Policy Division and police domestic abuse leads and that there is some local feedback on SPRs.
It is reassuring to note in areas where SCM has been implemented that victim views on prosecution, Non-Harassment Orders (NHOs) and so on are gathered during enhanced victim engagement.
SCM related evidence suggests that if the information on victims’ views is not included in the SPR that further enquiries by the police should be instructed by COPFS.
We are also advised that as deputes call victims in SCM cases as part of enhanced victim engagement there is scope at that point for them to gather information and views that may have changed since the date of report which is encouraging.
It is not clear from the evidence provided to IPS if work has started holistically to address the terms of this recommendation.
Recommendation 2(c): ensure that the approach to counter allegations set out in the joint protocol on challenging domestic abuse is followed in practice by both reporting officers and marking deputes. Managing counter allegations should form part of training.
Status: In progress
Rationale: It is heartening to see that the internal guidance and training on counter allegations is positive and advanced and also covered as part of domestic abuse marking training.
Again, it would be helpful to see the updated attendance rate at the domestic abuse case marking training and there to be dip sampling to monitor compliance with the training by marking deputes before assessing this recommendation.
In the main, it is unclear from the information provided to us if work with Police Scotland has progressed – we note that the Joint Protocol between Police Scotland and COPFS is being revised.
Recommendation 2(d): ensure that calls to 999 and 101 are assessed for their evidential value by both reporting officers and marking deputes.
Status: Substantial progress
Rationale: Work has been undertaken with Police Scotland so that a template has been added on Police Scotland systems specifically directing officers to the question of 999/101 calls. We also note that 999 calls are key evidence and require to be submitted by Police Scotland at the time of submission of the SPR.
The evidential value of 999 calls and 101 calls is now set out in the COPFS Domestic Abuse Manual and features in the domestic abuse marking training.
IPS require data about compliance with this recommendation.
Recommendation 2(e): address the premature reporting of cases and delays in carrying out further enquiries. Consideration should be given to increasing the use of investigative liberation, while ensuring that the risk to victims is assessed and managed through the use of protective conditions.
Status: Not achieved
Rationale: We note from evidence provided to IPS that it appears this is being addressed locally in some sheriffdoms but there is no evidence of a national approach or working collegiately with Police Scotland.
Along with all of recommendation 2 the requirement is to work with Police Scotland – COPFS accept that this recommendation is ‘contingent’ on Police Scotland and therefore a ‘year 2’ recommendation to be implemented by April 2026.
Recommendation 3: COPFS should ensure that statutory aggravations are applied where appropriate. This could be done via additional training and guidance, as well as quality assurance and feedback to staff.
Status: COPFS has classed recommendation 3 as a ‘year 2’ recommendation, to be implemented by April 2026
Status: Substantial progress
Rationale: Guidance, training, auditing, dip sampling and a commitment by ISD to add a step to the marking depute’s checklist as an automatic reminder to add the statutory aggravations are all positive.
It is reassuring to see that there has been auditing by COPFS Policy and NICP Divisions.
IPS require confirmation that the additional step has been added to the marking checklist by ISD and evidence from the audit to confirm that statutory aggravations are being added appropriately.
Recommendation 4: In domestic abuse cases, COPFS should require that marking instructions specify whether there is a sufficiency of evidence without the victim giving evidence.
Status: COPFS has classed recommendation 4 as a ‘year 2’ recommendation, to be implemented by April 2026
Status: Substantial progress
Rationale: Given the Lord Advocate’s 2023 references this is increasingly possible.
IPS notes that the Domestic Abuse Manual has been updated on this topic and that proceeding without the victim is included in the domestic abuse marking training.
Dip sampling of the marking depute’s instructions has taken place in NICP.
More staff will be trained in this SCM approach as it is rolled out across each sheriffdom.
IPS require evidence of dip sampling along with a commitment from COPFS to regularly check compliance.
Recommendation 5: COPFS should ensure there is a shared, service-wide understanding of Advance Notice Trials (ANT) and Advance Preparation Trials (APT). There should be a clear, efficient process for identifying cases that require advance notice or preparation and for ensuring that they receive the additional attention they require.
Status: In progress
Rationale: Now covered in the Domestic Abuse Manual and the CMIs.
There was a Local Court initiative to review APT/ANT guidance which is welcome though each sheriffdom is taking a different approach to monitoring and allocation of these cases and there is no agreed national process for managing these across Local Court as yet.
No evidence has been provided to IPS to demonstrate that deputes are now getting time to prepare these cases or how this is being addressed which is also part of the recommendation.
Recommendation 6(a): COPFS should ensure that domestic abuse cases at summary level are prepared effectively. This will require that:
(a) new information is brought to the attention of deputes and acted on promptly
Status: COPFS has classed recommendation 6 as a ‘year 2’ recommendation, to be implemented by April 2026
Status: In progress
Rationale: It is envisaged that with SCM, deputes will have more preparation time so that they are reviewing cases earlier and may then be more readily aware of new information in a case.
We understand that those leading SCM in COPFS are considering how to implement this recommendation given there is now an absence of intermediate diets.
It is unclear to IPS from the COPFS action plan provided what changes are being implemented to address this recommendation beyond an updated VIA minute sheet and a review of mail allocation processes which we note is planned across Local Court.
Recommendation 6(b): deputes are available to deal with urgent and unexpected queries as they arise.
Status: In progress
Rationale: This part of the recommendation was specific to deputes being available to deal with urgent enquiries. We accept that it is a resourcing challenge to ensure that there is always an office depute.
Once a trial is fixed there remains the potential for lack of ownership/no-one actively looking at cases for some time which we are advised is being considered by COPFS.
Recommendation 6(c): the tasking of reporting officers is followed up timeously.
Status: In progress
Rationale: There is now a national escalation process in place should there be a difficulty with follow-up work being carried out by reporting officers but further information is required for IPS to make a full assessment of whether the recommendation is being met and what is happening in practice.
Recommendation 6(d): action is taken to address any risks to the efficient progression of the case.
Status: Not achieved
Rationale: The relevant Practice Note states that cases should be accelerated by s137 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 if an issue arises which precludes the case proceeding. It is unclear at present how deputes will become aware of matters arising if there is no thorough procedure in place to check the case or guidance on how s137 applications should be managed and processed.
Recommendation 6(e): deputes have sufficient time to address issues during their case preparation.
Status: In progress
Rationale: It is anticipated that SCM will address this issue and we have heard from various sources across COPFS that the implementation of SCM is successful. However, IPS require information/data to demonstrate that deputes across COPFS now have sufficient case preparation time for summary domestic abuse cases.
Recommendation 7: COPFS should ensure that an accurate record of discussions and decisions at pre-intermediate diet meetings is made in the electronic case file.
Status: In progress
Rationale: Since the implementation of SCM there is a presumption against intermediate diets and pre intermediate diet meetings. IPS is however aware of sheriffdoms producing their own templates to record discussions where these do take place, so there will be local, inconsistent practices across the service.
Implementation of this recommendation will need to be further considered given the change in process.
Recommendation 8: To avoid unnecessary adjournments, COPFS should ensure that, where it is clear during case marking or case preparation that the complexity of the case or the nature of the evidence required will mean early trial diets are not achievable, then more realistic trial diets should be sought.
Status: COPFS has classed recommendation 8 as a ‘year 2’ recommendation, to be implemented by April 2026
Status: In progress
Rationale: Should SCM be successfully implemented this recommendation has the potential to be superseded as a trial diet should only be fixed if all parties are ready and effective case management has taken place.
COPFS continue to work with Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) in relation to this recommendation.
Recommendation 9: COPFS should provide clear guidance to staff on when a domestic abuse victim should be informed of a decision to discontinue a case and of their right to request a review of that decision.
Status: In progress
Rationale: Guidance has been updated in the Domestic Abuse Manual to advise that discontinuations should be communicated to the victim.
The VIA response and how they communicate this information to victims is still awaited as part of the Victim & Witness Engagement Strategy VMP phase II.
IPS require evidence of whether the guidance is being followed by staff.
Recommendation 10: Where cases are discontinued at court, COPFS should ensure that they are reviewed timeously by a Principal Depute. The Principal Depute should review whether the discontinuation decision was appropriate, identify if there is any learning arising from the case, and determine how the case should proceed.
Status: In progress
Rationale: IPS understands that the COPFS Domestic Abuse Forum will address COPFS wide learning.
There is currently no national process in place and sheriffdoms are implementing this recommendation independently. There requires to be a COPFS national process along with evidence that this has been implemented and compliance checks. IPS will require evidence of this.
Recommendation 11: As well as monitoring the domestic abuse waiting period, COPFS should work with its partners to monitor the overall journey time for domestic abuse cases. This monitoring should lead to action to address any barriers to progressing cases efficiently.
Status: COPFS has classed recommendation 11 as a ‘year 2’ recommendation, to be implemented by April 2026
Status: In progress
Rationale: There have been advancements nationally between SCTS and COPFS – IPS understands that overall journey time will be measured but there is no timescale for this to be achieved yet.
Recommendation 12(a): With regard to bail in domestic abuse cases, COPFS should:
(a) ensure that prosecutors provide sheriffs with information about whether victims want special bail conditions and, if so, what those conditions should be, tailored to each victim’s needs.
Status: COPFS has classed recommendation 12 as a ‘year 2’ recommendation, to be implemented by April 2026
Status: In progress
Rationale: Guidance has been provided to COPFS staff in the Domestic Abuse Manual, Bail Manual and marking training.
COPFS staff are linking in with third sector colleagues locally to assess victims’ needs.
There is currently no data available to IPS to demonstrate that the guidance is being followed, nor that marking deputes are tailoring bail conditions or that court deputes are seeking these conditions.
Recommendation 12(b): work with justice partners, particularly the police and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, to ensure that victims are informed of the outcome of the accused’s first appearance on the same day, and update all guidance and protocols accordingly.
Status: In progress
Rationale: The Domestic Abuse Manual states that VIA should provide this information by phone the same day or a maximum of 24 hours after the accused has appeared at court (and if the accused is released from custody and VIA cannot make contact the police must do so). The IPS report at paragraphs 281-283 raises the inconsistent practice with some VIA officers contacting witnesses the same day and others waiting until the following day.
IPS also notes that the Domestic Abuse Manual states that by local agreement victims could be updated by an advocacy service.
IPS remain concerned about a lack of uniform practice and what is happening in practice given identified barriers such as VIA backlogs and require evidence to provide reassurance about the implementation of this recommendation.
Recommendation 12(c): ensure that victims are informed of bail review applications, their views are sought and put before the court, and they are informed of the outcome timeously.
Status: In progress
Rationale: Guidance is provided in the Domestic Abuse Manual about the need to seek/provide this information to victims and by whom. However, IPS understands that only once VMP phase II is concluded will this recommendation be considered for action by VIA officers (by April 2026).
Updates from sheriffdoms have been shared by COPFS but highlight the absence of a consistent national process to deliver the instruction in the Domestic Abuse Manual.
No data has yet been shared with IPS to capture what is happening in practice.
Recommendation 13(a): In domestic abuse cases, COPFS should ensure that:
(a) throughout the case, the victim’s views on the need for a non-harassment order and its contents should be sought, whether directly or through a support organisation.
Status: COPFS has classed recommendation 13 as a ‘year 2’ recommendation, to be implemented by April 2026
Status: In progress
Rationale: The COPFS Victims & Witnesses Manual requires to be updated to provide guidance to staff.
IPS has been advised that collaborative work with third sector colleagues is assisting and deputes are aware of this. We still require to see evidence of this. It is positive that the calls made by deputes to domestic abuse victims in SCM areas provide an opportunity to seek the victim’s views on NHOs.
It is however difficult to assess what current provision there is to review victims’ views during the life of a case.
Dip sampling has been carried out in one sheriffdom which is useful but COPFS wide data is required for IPS to properly assess this recommendation.
Recommendation 13(b): reports containing the views of the victim about non-harassment orders should be processed and brought to the attention of prosecutors timeously, and the victim’s views put before the court.
Status: In progress
Rationale: As above per rec 13(a) IPS will require evidence from COPFS that there is a clear national process for communications from victims and third sector organisations to be brought to the attention of prosecutors timeously so that they can be actioned and put before the court.
Recommendation 14: COPFS should review its guidance to ensure there are clear, consistent instructions to staff about who is responsible for notifying victims of postponed undertaking dates. Guidance should be supported by appropriate processes, and staff should be made aware of the approach to be taken.
Status: In progress
Rationale: Guidance is provided in an Operational Instruction and the Domestic Abuse Manual however we remain concerned about clarity and consistency.
There is outstanding work for ISD with no delivery date to enable deputes to refer victims to VIA before a prosecutorial decision is made.
IPS require sight of evidence that staff are aware of this instruction and that there is compliance with it.
Recommendation 15(a): With regard to special measures, COPFS should:
(a) ensure that when victims make contact to discuss special measures, they are offered the full range of measures available. This will allow victims to choose the standard special measure or measures that will help them give their best evidence, or request non-standard measures.
Status: In progress
Rationale: It was not immediately clear to IPS that the full range of special measures were being offered to all domestic abuse victims. COPFS has undertaken to revise the guidance in the Domestic Abuse Manual to ensure that this recommendation is fully captured.
IPS will require to see evidence or dip sampling to assess whether VIA staff are now offering the full range of measures to victims.
Recommendation 15(b): work with its justice partners towards ensuring all victims in domestic abuse cases have the opportunity to give their evidence remotely, and that there is sufficient capacity to meet demand.
Status: Not achieved
Rationale: COPFS require to work with SCTS to implement this recommendation.
Recommendation 15(c): review the process for arranging remote TV links from other nations in the UK and consider whether this should be done by a centralised resource.
Status: Not achieved
Rationale: COPFS require to work with SCTS to implement this recommendation but also require to consider if a centralised resource (such as COPFS ICU[70] division who have the established connections) in Crown Office should deal with all the requests to courts in the UK.
Recommendation 15(d): inform victims about the special measures that have been granted. This information should be provided as early as possible.
Status: Not achieved
Rationale: The Domestic Abuse Manual now provides guidance on communication skills required when speaking with victims but there is no direction to VIA staff that they must inform victims of the special measures that have been granted other than in situations where evidence from a remote site is to be the special measure. IPS will require evidence of compliance of this recommendation by VIA officers once they are directed by guidance.
Recommendation 16: COPFS should ensure that victims in summary domestic abuse cases are proactively made aware of the possibility of viewing their statement in advance of the trial.
Status: COPFS has classed recommendation 16 as a ‘year 2’ recommendation, to be implemented by April 2026
Status: Substantial progress
Rationale: IPS have been advised that the COPFS Witness Gateway will enable some summary adult victims to view their statement when it is approved by the prosecutor (we note however that take up rate is currently low for witnesses access the Witness Gateway).
We understand that child witnesses and victims are informed in a letter of the possibility of viewing their statement but IPS await further evidence about this.
In person meetings which take place between deputes and domestic abuse victims in SCM areas will afford victims an opportunity to read their statement.
IPS await evidence to demonstrate that victims in summary domestic abuse cases are aware of the opportunity to view their statements in order to assess compliance with this recommendation.
Recommendation 17: COPFS should ensure that in all summary domestic abuse cases, prosecutors seek to make contact with the victim as part of their early case preparation. Prosecutors should have sufficient capacity to carry out this task effectively.
Status: In progress
Rationale: Chapter 6 of the Domestic Abuse Manual now has guidance for deputes on the content of these calls to victims. This will be of assistance to less experienced prosecutors.
There is a presumption of enhanced victim engagement in SCM cases, however we remain concerned about whether prosecutors have capacity to carry out this task and note that practice varies across sheriffdoms.
Whilst we have very recently received data in relation to ‘prosecutor contact’ by COPFS, which shows that in August 2025 74% of SCM domestic abuse cases had recorded prosecutor contact being made with victims ie a record made of making or attempting to make a call by a legal member of staff in the early stages of the case IPS require information about how prosecutors’ capacity is ensured and if there is a regular monitoring of deputes to ensure that they have time to make these calls and further information about how the data on prosecutorial contact is categorised before assessing this recommendation.
Recommendation 18: In summary domestic abuse cases, COPFS should address victims’ desire to speak with the trial prosecutor in court. To alleviate the pressure on prosecutors at court, this could include requiring prosecutors to make contact with victims during trial preparation to introduce themselves and address any outstanding issues. Prosecutors should have sufficient capacity to carry out this task effectively.
Status: In progress
Rationale: SCM has made progress in relation to enhanced early victim engagement which requires deputes to speak with victims on the day of trial.
There is currently no data regarding the number of successful calls made to domestic abuse victims made at the trial prosecution stage and how SCM is ensuring that deputes have time to do this and how that is working in practice. Nor is there any data regarding how often trial deputes are making contact with domestic abuse victims on the day of trial or during trial preparation. We were provided with two examples of practices in sheriffdoms involving trial prosecutors but no national strategy or process.
Recommendation 19(a): In relation to communicating with victims in summary domestic abuse cases, COPFS should:
(a) take immediate steps to ensure that victims are receiving basic information about their case, including its outcome, timeously.
Status: COPFS has classed recommendation 19 as a ‘year 2’ recommendation, to be implemented by April 2026
Status: Not achieved
Rationale: Despite the wording of this recommendation making clear that immediate action was to be taken to address the failures identified in the inspection report no effective progress has been made. No evidence has been presented to IPS that VIA backlogs have reduced or that victims are routinely receiving this basic information timeously.
Recommendation 19(b): work towards providing information to victims at additional key points in the progression of cases.
Status: Not achieved
Rationale: This engagement is not covered in the Domestic Abuse Manual nor has any related evidence been shared with IPS.
Recommendation 19(c): develop guidance for all staff to ensure that there is consistent practice regarding what a victim is told about charges and accepted pleas.
Status: In progress
Rationale: Whilst the Domestic Abuse Manual is a central reference/guidance for staff which explains that the views and interests of the victim are likely to be a relevant factor in consideration of a plea and states that the victim should be advised of the nature of the plea, the reasons for it and what happens next there is no practical guidance for staff on how to approach this.
Although we note that COPFS plan to update a guidance manual for VIA to include information on what can and cannot be disclosed to victims.
Recommendation 19(d): ensure that staff are able to identify and respond to the additional support needs of victims.
Status: In progress
Rationale: IPS is aware that there is a great deal of effort going into COPFS trauma-informed practice albeit it is at very early stages.
Additional support needs will be discussed in the calls with domestic abuse victims along with signposting to advocacy services in terms of SCM.
We note that a VIA toolkit has been introduced which we understand may help to address this recommendation. We also note ongoing work between COPFS and victim support organisations to join up services and improve referrals where possible which is encouraging.
In order to assess this recommendation IPS require to see data to evidence what is happening in practice. This should include dip sampling or quality assurance to ensure communication is being tailored appropriately to meet victims’ needs.
Recommendation 20: COPFS should review whether the current VIA service in summary cases is fit for purpose and whether, in its current form, it will be able to deliver a person-centred and trauma-informed service to victims. As part of its review, COPFS should consider the need for effective national leadership and oversight of the VIA service.
Status: Not achieved
Rationale: There is no evidence available to IPS to suggest that work on this recommendation has begun. We remain extremely concerned about the standard of service being provided to domestic abuse victims and the pressures felt by summary VIA staff.
Recommendation 21: COPFS should provide victims in domestic abuse cases with a dedicated VIA officer.
Status: Not achieved
Rationale: There is no evidence available to suggest that work on this recommendation has begun.
Recommendation 22: COPFS should ensure that all victim and witness contact is recorded in one centralised place accessible to all staff. In the short term, COPFS should take immediate action to ensure that all staff are aware where victim and witness contact with Enquiry Point is recorded, and that staff use this information when preparing and managing cases.
Status: In progress
Rationale: There is a proposed ISD solution which we understand is to be a user-friendly VIA minute sheet. We also understand that a working group has now been established to explore options of capturing the information in one document in the COPFS case management system to address this risk.
This is a recurrent issue for COPFS as reflected in the National Enquiry Point inspection and our ongoing inspection on citations.
Recommendation 23: To improve the efficiency of its service, COPFS should identify and reduce failure demand.
Status: In progress
Rationale: This recommendation relates to summary case administrative backlogs. IPS understands that failure demand will be an ongoing issue for COPFS and will be dependent on all of the other recommendations being implemented which is likely to take some time.
Recommendation 24: At an early stage in proceedings, COPFS should proactively advise child witnesses who provide statements to the police in domestic abuse cases (and/or their parents or guardians) whether or not they will be cited to give evidence.
Status: Substantial progress
Rationale: The Domestic Abuse Manual has a requirement that once a decision is taken about whether a child is needed as a witness that this requires to be communicated. It is, however, not clear from the manual who does this, when or how this should be communicated.
IPS will require data and evidence to demonstrate that this is happening in practice.
Recommendation 25: COPFS should review its use of quality assurance to support continuous improvement in the management of summary cases and in communication with victims and witnesses.
Status: In progress
Rationale: We understand that the COPFS National Domestic Abuse Forum will discuss quality assurance issues whilst sheriffdoms carry out their own projects/initiatives. NICP undertake quality assurance checks of SCM marking and the SCM project team carry out dip sampling.
It is unclear if there is to be quality assurance in relation to VIA.
In order to properly assess the implementation of this recommendation IPS requires data to demonstrate what quality assurance checks are being carried out across COPFS.
Recommendation 26: COPFS should gather feedback from victims and witnesses about their experience in domestic abuse cases. This feedback should be used to support improvements in its service.
Status: COPFS has classed recommendation 26 as a ‘year 2’ recommendation, to be implemented by April 2026
Status: Substantial progress
Rationale: COPFS has increased its use of lived experience feedback including during an internal COPFS domestic abuse awareness month.
We are advised that there is a particular focus on the development of third sector formal feedback loops. Examples have been provided of good but varied practice from some sheriffdoms.
The COPFS domestic abuse policy lead monitors and responds to weekly ASSIST[71] bulletins as a source of lived experience feedback.
Further evidence of how this is working in practice would enable IPS to assess this recommendation.
Recommendation 27: COPFS should ensure there is a national mechanism by which information about its management of domestic abuse cases (including the results of quality assurance activity, complaints, Victims’ Right to Review applications, feedback from service users and support organisations, and performance data) is monitored, discussed and acted upon, with a view to supporting continuous improvement in its service.
Status: COPFS has classed recommendation 27 as a ‘year 2’ recommendation, to be implemented by April 2026
Status: Achieved
Rationale: A National Domestic Abuse Forum has been established and has met regularly since February 2024. It is currently chaired by a Procurator Fiscal and a number of practitioners from across COPFS sit on the forum.
We have been provided with minutes from this forum.