Related Downloads
Related Links
Additional
Key findings
Supporting staff
Prosecution policy and guidance on managing domestic abuse cases is generally clear, comprehensive, accessible and robust. Staff were aware of the policy and that addressing domestic abuse is a strategic priority for COPFS.
There is a good range of training available to staff on managing domestic abuse cases. Those staff who had completed the training found it valuable. However, few staff we interviewed had been able to take advantage of the range of training on offer, including some who manage and prosecute domestic abuse cases daily. They cited a lack of resources to cover their role as a barrier to doing more training.
COPFS has committed to delivering a trauma-informed service. More requires to be done to ensure its workforce and processes are trauma-informed.
The IT systems used by COPFS hamper staff productivity and do not help staff manage cases as efficiently and effectively as possible. This affects the service provided to victims and staff morale.
Reporting and marking cases
In the 60 cases we reviewed, 37% of SPRs fully supported prosecutorial decision making. There were examples of excellent, detailed reports. However, there were also reports which did not address key issues.
The standard of SPRs was consistently better in Glasgow. These reports better supported prosecutorial decision making. We also heard that the standard of SPRs in Dundee is improving as a result of the summary case management pilot.
Almost all SPRs in Glasgow and Dundee set out the views of the victim on at least one of three issues – court proceedings, bail conditions and non-harassment orders. However, across all the cases we reviewed, it was not uncommon for the victim’s views on at least one of the three issues to be missing.
Marking deputes said the police continued to report both parties where counter allegations had been made, despite guidance that states the principal perpetrator should be identified and reported.
Submitting key evidence at the same time as the SPR, as happens in the summary case management pilot, not only facilitates early disclosure to the defence, but also provides a stronger foundation on which the marking depute can make decisions about the case and how it should proceed.
Marking decisions were appropriate in almost all of the cases we reviewed.
There appeared to be a correlation between the standard of the SPR and the quality of the marking decision. This highlights the importance of the police getting it right from the start of the case, and the need for marking deputes to address any deficiencies at the earliest opportunity.
COPFS should be more proactive at an earlier stage in its efforts to engage and support victims who are at risk of not supporting a prosecution.
In summary case management pilot cases, marking deputes are required to address additional issues in their marking instructions. This has a positive impact on case management. In these cases, marking deputes are also required to state whether the prosecution can proceed without the victim’s evidence. This requirement should be rolled out nationally.
Preparing and prosecuting cases
Deputes are able to flag cases requiring additional attention, which is helpful. However, guidance on what is an Advance Notice Trial (ANT) or an Advance Preparation Trial (APT) is inconsistent and practice varies. A failure to appropriately identify ANTs and APTs at the marking stage means they require to be reassessed by another depute.
Deputes said they lacked time to prepare cases adequately at various stages in the justice process. Trial preparation was often done the evening before the trial after spending the day in court. The high volume of cases scheduled in court each day made preparation more difficult.
COPFS’s model for preparing and managing domestic abuse cases at summary level was not working well in too many of the cases we reviewed. A lack of ownership at different stages and a failure to address issues promptly during preparation led to delayed and/or poor outcomes. There is a need to ensure there is effective oversight and grip of cases throughout the prosecution process.
Efforts are made by COPFS to agree evidence at the earliest opportunity. This reduces the evidence to be led at trial, saving court time and potentially reducing the number of witnesses that need to be cited.
A key feature of the summary case management pilot is the early disclosure of key evidence to the defence. COPFS’s performance on this measure is strong in Dundee.
COPFS could do more to anticipate and address issues that lead to adjournments. This includes through better case preparation and early engagement with the victim to assess their attitude towards prosecution, answer questions and provide reassurance.
Where it is clear during case marking and preparation that early trial diets are not achievable, more realistic trial diets should be sought.
If cases are managed and prepared more effectively, more cases would proceed to trial. Decisions to discontinue at a late stage would either not be necessary or could be made earlier.
When cases are not called or deserted pro loco et tempore, there appeared to be no consistent and timely review process to decide what action should be taken next.
Progressing cases efficiently
There is a welcome collective goal among justice agencies that domestic abuse cases should be prioritised and that early trial diets should be sought.
There is a target, known as the domestic abuse waiting period, of scheduling the first trial diet in a summary domestic abuse case within 10 weeks of the first calling of the case. The target was extended to 12 weeks during the pandemic.
Between February 2023 and January 2024, the average waiting period across Scotland was 11 weeks. Glasgow Sheriff Court has the highest volume of cases but has achieved an average waiting period of nine weeks.
The domestic abuse waiting period is a useful indicator but it only provides a partial picture of case journey times. In some areas, it appeared as though a case was no longer prioritised if it was adjourned at the first trial diet. Adjourned trial diets can be set months rather than weeks later.
Monitoring the total journey time of cases would be a more person-centred and outcome-focused approach to measuring performance.
Where journey times are prolonged, the need for COPFS to communicate, update and support victims to ensure engagement, is all the greater.
Supporting victims
Special bail conditions are regularly sought by prosecutors to help protect victims. However, they are not always sufficiently tailored to the needs of victims.
When there is an application to review an accused’s bail conditions, victims are not always consulted or informed of the outcome.
COPFS has committed to attempting to advise victims promptly of the outcome of the first calling of the case and any bail conditions. This is achieved in many but not all cases.
There is a need to improve victims’ pick-up rate when COPFS makes contact by phone. COPFS requires to explore and address the reasons victims do not answer calls.
Prosecutors are well aware of the need to provide the court with victims’ up to date position on non-harassment orders. There was less understanding of this among VIA staff. Reports setting out a victim’s views on non-harassment orders were often submitted by support organisations but did not always reach prosecutors timeously.
Applications for special measures to help victims give evidence at court are made routinely. In some cases, there were examples of effective discussions between victims and VIA about the measures that would support them to give their best evidence.
Generally, the onus is on the victim to contact VIA about their preferred special measures. For many victims in summary cases, VIA acted as a gatekeeper to special measures rather than a facilitator. Many victims were not aware of the full range of special measures available.
Many victims would prefer to give evidence via a TV link from a remote location. Justice agencies should work together to ensure this option is available to all victims in domestic abuse cases, and that there is sufficient capacity to meet demand.
Victims are not routinely advised whether applications for special measures have been granted.
There are welcome initiatives to enhance engagement between the prosecutor and the victim during case preparation. Such initiatives should be rolled out nationally.
Many victims want to have contact with the depute who will prosecute their case in court. There are barriers to achieving this, including the high level of court loadings and the many other demands on a prosecutor’s time at court.
There were 61 victims in the cases we reviewed. Only 33% were fully or mostly advised of the key dates in their case. Many victims would like to receive more information, including about pleas and adjournments, and to be kept updated more frequently and more timeously after key developments.
The overall quality of communication was assessed as unsatisfactory for 80% of victims in the cases we reviewed.
Much of VIA’s communication with victims is through letters. The quality of the letters continues to attract adverse comment from victims. Opportunities to tailor communication to the individual needs of victims are often missed.
Many victims and advocacy workers reported that VIA was often inaccessible and unresponsive. However, in some areas, victims and advocacy workers were more positive about their experience of VIA.
Backlogs in VIA’s work contribute to victims not being kept informed of the progress and outcome of their case. Many VIA staff felt frustrated and demoralised and were keen to do a better job. They wanted to have more direct contact with victims, but felt constrained by a lack of capacity and an increasing workload.
For some victims, advocacy workers have stepped in to fill gaps in communication and support from COPFS in addition to performing their own role. Advocacy workers help victims navigate the justice system, but not all victims have this support.
A VIA Modernisation Programme is looking at several of these issues. A more fundamental review of VIA’s capacity and capability to deliver what is required of it in summary domestic abuse cases is required.
COPFS’s National Enquiry Point is often the first point of contact for victims and witnesses. There was a record of contact between victims and witnesses and Enquiry Point in 40% of the cases we reviewed. Enquiry Point operators seek to deal with queries at the first point of contact. Demand appears to be shifting from VIA to Enquiry Point, but this needs to be managed and supported.
Contact with victims is not captured in a single, centralised place. This results in key information being missed, including during case preparation.
Supporting child witnesses
Many of the issues highlighted in respect of victims apply equally to children, whether they are the victim of domestic abuse or a witness.
Whether to cite a child as a witness is, appropriately, case and child-dependent. Some children will be keen to have their say, while others may be reluctant to give evidence, especially against a parent.
Victims felt they waited too long to find out from COPFS whether their child would be cited to give evidence.
Prosecutors felt the quality of joint investigative interviews was improving, but noted barriers to using them more regularly.
Victims and advocacy workers felt that delays in the justice system had an even greater impact on the wellbeing of child witnesses.
Supporting continuous improvement and working in partnership
There is limited evidence of quality assurance being used to routinely monitor the quality of case management and communication with victims.
While COPFS has committed to seeking user feedback to support continuous improvement, there is currently no mechanism by which COPFS routinely gathers information about the experience of victims in domestic abuse cases.
COPFS engages well with its national partners in their efforts to address domestic abuse. Feedback about local partnership working was more mixed. Where local partnership working is more established, this contributes to the more effective management of domestic abuse cases.
COPFS works well with other justice agencies to implement the summary case management pilot. Pilot cases, processes and data are being monitored to assess the pilot’s impact and to identify further improvements.