The prosecution of domestic abuse cases at sheriff summary level

Introduction

The aim of this inspection was to assess how well the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) manages and prosecutes cases involving domestic abuse at sheriff summary level.

Experiences of the justice process

To support our inspection, we engaged with 23 people who had experienced domestic abuse. We would like to thank those who shared their experiences with us. They revisited difficult and often traumatic periods in their lives in the hope that their experiences could lead to better outcomes for others. We also benefited from interviews and focus groups with more than 50 advocacy workers who shared their experience of supporting hundreds of other victims and child witnesses through the justice process.

A small number of the victims we met had a generally positive experience of the justice process. Some victims were able to point to specific parts of their experience that were positive, or to specific professionals who they considered had helped them through a difficult time. Victims were consistently appreciative of the assistance provided by voluntary sector advocacy and support organisations.

We were concerned, however, that most victims had a poor experience of the justice process. Several said they had lost faith in the justice system and felt let down by justice agencies. One victim described the justice process as ‘hugely traumatic for not a lot of outcome’. Another said, ‘No wonder women don’t report domestic abuse, if this is how the justice system responds’.

Victims often felt unsupported, and described the justice process as confusing, frustrating, exhausting and stressful. They felt as though they were a burden to justice agencies. They wanted statutory agencies to be more trauma-informed. A recurring theme from our discussions was victims’ sense that the accused had not been held to account for their behaviour. Victims felt the accused was persistently released on the same bail conditions they had already breached, the accused failed to appear at court with no apparent consequences, and sentencing outcomes did not reflect the gravity of the offending. One victim said their ex-partner had been ‘emboldened’ by the way their case had been handled by the justice system.

Another recurring theme was the length of the justice process. While a few victims felt their cases had progressed efficiently, most described repeated delays and adjournments. Victims felt unable to move on with their lives.

We sought to understand the reasons for victims’ poor experience of the justice process and the role played by COPFS.

The prosecution of domestic abuse cases at sheriff summary level

Tackling violence against women and girls is a strategic priority for COPFS. Those working at COPFS are well aware of the need to respond robustly to reports of domestic abuse. We met a range of staff who are committed to delivering an effective service to some of the most vulnerable victims in the justice system. We found some cases that are well-prepared and in which victims are kept informed of developments, supported to give evidence through appropriate special measures, and protected through special bail conditions and non-harassment orders. We also found that domestic abuse cases were being prioritised for early trial diets.

However, we also examined too many cases which could have been prepared more effectively and efficiently, and in which victims’ individual needs were not addressed. Despite aspiring to deliver a person-centred and trauma-informed service, we considered that much work requires to be done before this aspiration can be delivered routinely. We make 27 recommendations for improvement.

In too many cases we reviewed, there was a failure to address issues at the earliest opportunity during case preparation. The model for preparing domestic abuse cases at summary level, whereby cases pass from prosecutor to prosecutor at different stages, contributes to a lack of case ownership. This lack of ownership, coupled with a lack of preparation time and the relative inexperience of some summary prosecutors, means cases are not prepared as effectively as they should be. In some cases this led to delays, and in others it resulted in cases being discontinued at a late stage. It also risked victims’ withdrawal from the process.

There is also a failure to engage effectively with victims who are not engaged in, or are at risk of disengaging from, the justice process. Insufficient steps are being taken to establish the reasons for victims’ lack of engagement, and to provide reassurance and appropriate support. The approach appears to be one of hoping for the best, without taking proactive steps to achieve positive outcomes. Recent initiatives in some areas to enhance engagement with victims during case preparation are welcome, but require to be delivered more effectively and rolled out nationally.

Communication with and support for victims is also inadequate. We reviewed communication between COPFS and 61 victims. We found the overall quality of communication to be unsatisfactory for 80% of those victims. Efforts to enhance engagement between prosecutors and victims simply cannot make up for basic errors or delays in the service delivered by COPFS’s Victim Information and Advice service (VIA).

VIA is staffed by many people who are committed to delivering a better service for victims, but who feel constrained and frustrated by the limitations of their role and their workload. They are being hampered by, amongst other things, backlogs of work; a lack of resources, training and support; and poor systems. In summary domestic abuse cases, VIA is at risk of becoming a letter-writing service, rather than one in which staff proactively support and engage with victims in a way that is tailored to individual needs. Fundamentally, there is a need to review whether, in summary cases, the VIA service is fit for purpose and whether, in its current form, it will be able to deliver the person-centred and trauma-informed service to victims to which COPFS aspires.

The picture that emerges from our inspection is of a service committed in principle to tackling domestic abuse and supporting victims, but which is struggling to put this commitment into practice in every case and to keep pace with increasing expectations. Indeed, many of our recommendations relate to matters that are already required by policy or processes, but which are not yet being delivered routinely.

Some of the issues highlighted in our report are not entirely within the control of COPFS. It requires to work closely with other justice agencies, notably the police and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS), to consider and address the issues raised. For example, there is a need to work with the police to improve the quality of Standard Prosecution Reports (SPRs) submitted by reporting officers. Our findings illustrate that high quality reporting by the police has a lasting impact on how efficiently cases subsequently progress. There is also a need to work with the SCTS to ensure that measures agreed to help victims give their best evidence are actually in place on the day of the trial.

This report also highlights the need for COPFS to embed quality assurance in its work, and to exercise more effective governance of the management of domestic abuse cases by improved monitoring of performance data, complaints, Victims’ Right to Review applications and service user feedback.

Different approaches to managing summary cases

When planning this inspection, the Lord Advocate asked me to compare the prosecution of summary level domestic abuse offending under the standard summary prosecution procedure, in the Glasgow Domestic Abuse Court, and in the summary case management pilot. We chose to focus on the way in which the pilot is operating in Dundee, one of the three pilot sites.^[1]

In both Glasgow and Dundee, there were examples of better practice, compared to the service being delivered in the rest of Scotland under the standard summary prosecution procedure.

In Glasgow:

• The quality of SPRs submitted by the police to COPFS was consistently better than elsewhere. We could not establish why this was so, but these reports better supported prosecutorial decision making.
• The quality of the marking decisions was substantially better. There appeared to be a correlation between the quality of the SPR and the quality of the marking decision, highlighting the importance of the police getting it right from the start of the case.
• A dedicated team of deputes prosecuted cases in the Glasgow Domestic Abuse Court. This provided an opportunity for these deputes to develop expertise in managing and prosecuting domestic cases. Such an approach may only be replicable in areas which have a high volume of domestic abuse cases.
• The cases we reviewed suggested that deputes in Glasgow may have had a more robust approach to accepting pleas compared to elsewhere. However, our case samples were not statistically significant, so we cannot be sure if this finding was due to chance. This may benefit from further exploration.
• Court loadings for the Glasgow Domestic Abuse Court were lower than those for other courts in Glasgow. This allowed deputes more preparation time. We also heard that sheriffs in this court were more consistently amenable to allowing time for deputes to meet with victims at court.
• The time between the first calling of the case and the first trial diet in Glasgow is one of the lowest in Scotland, despite it having the highest volume of cases.
• In the cases we reviewed, the time between the first and second trial diets was lower than elsewhere, suggesting that domestic abuse cases continue to be prioritised in Glasgow even after the first trial diet is adjourned. The average journey time between the case being reported to COPFS and it being concluded was also lower in Glasgow compared to the cases we reviewed elsewhere.

The examples of better practice in Glasgow are not just attributable to COPFS, but also to other justice agencies and the collective effort they make in domestic abuse cases. This may be due to the existence of the Glasgow Domestic Abuse Court. This is despite the court not operating as it once did – for example, while there are still dedicated prosecutors, there are no longer dedicated sheriffs. Governance arrangements highlighted in an evaluation of the court have also fallen away.^[2] Nonetheless, the court still appears to be having a positive effect. There have been initiatives to cluster domestic abuse cases in other courts in Scotland, but we heard that these had largely stopped during the pandemic.

The impact of the summary case management pilot is set out in detail in an interim evaluation published in November 2023.^[3] In our inspection, we noted that in Dundee:

• Deputes said the quality of SPRs submitted by the police continued to improve since the introduction of the summary case management pilot.
• The submission of key evidence alongside the SPR enhanced prosecutorial decision making. We also heard that it contributed to speedier marking decisions, a reduction in the need to instruct further enquiries, and informed more comprehensive marking instructions, which contributes to more effective case management from the outset.
• The submission of key evidence alongside the SPR also facilitated early disclosure to the defence, which can lead to pleas being tendered at an earlier stage in proceedings.
• Marking deputes were noting whether the victim’s evidence is required to prove the charge.
• The Digital Evidence Sharing Capability has been piloted in Dundee to positive feedback. Prosecutors said the quality of images shared via this platform was much improved, and evidence could be shared more easily and more quickly.
• Case management hearings were generally replacing pre-intermediate diet meetings and intermediate diets. Prosecutors felt these contributed to issues being resolved.
• Cases were being continued without plea by the court with the aim of them being resolved without trial diets being set unnecessarily. There is a need to ensure this does not prolong case journey times however.
• There was good partnership working in support of the pilot’s implementation.

In both Glasgow and Dundee, there were initiatives to enhance engagement between prosecutors and victims during case preparation. The arrangements varied in each area, but the general principle is welcome. When delivered routinely, enhanced engagement should significantly improve case preparation. We consider that it is beneficial to the victim. It may also help secure pleas at an earlier stage and reduce late discontinuations, thereby contributing to a more effective and efficient justice system overall.

Despite these examples of better practice in both Glasgow and Dundee, many of the issues highlighted above, such as not addressing issues at an earlier stage during case preparation and inadequate communication with victims, existed as much in those areas as elsewhere. Our findings suggest there is no one approach which is consistently better than others. Rather, each approach has features which contribute to the more effective management of summary domestic abuse cases. In this report, we have highlighted those features which COPFS should consider implementing across its service.

Next steps

In response to this report, COPFS will produce an action plan setting out how it will respond to our recommendations. Each action will require to form part of a coherent package of reform. We consider that action taken in one area may help relieve pressure and support improvement in another. We will review the progress made by COPFS in delivering its plan.

As well as the victims and advocacy workers who gave so generously of their time to support our inspection, we would like to thank all those from COPFS and other organisations who shared their experiences with us. Their views and suggestions helped shape our findings and recommendations.

Laura Paton
HM Chief Inspector of Prosecution

March 2024