The prosecution of domestic abuse cases at sheriff summary level

Progressing cases efficiently

235. There is a collective goal among justice agencies that domestic abuse cases should be prioritised and that early trial diets should be sought. For several years, they have worked towards a target 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. This target is referred to as the domestic abuse waiting period or waiting time. The Vision for Justice in Scotland, published in 2022, notes that domestic abuse cases were prioritised prior to and during lockdown but that, ‘it is anticipated that it will take several years to manage the backlog and return to the waiting time of 10 weeks for domestic abuse’.^[59]

236. The target is monitored by COPFS, with data being available about the waiting period across Scotland as a whole and in each sheriff court. Monitoring the data allows COPFS to liaise with SCTS to assess performance across different courts and to explore why the target is not being met in certain areas and even in individual cases.

237. Between February 2023 and January 2024, the average waiting period for cases involving a domestic abuse charge or aggravator across Scotland was 11 weeks.^[60] The average waiting period ranged from 8.3 weeks to 16.2 weeks, although it should be noted that some of the lower waiting periods are achieved in courts with a very small number of cases. Glasgow Sheriff Court has the highest volume of cases but has achieved an average waiting period of nine weeks. Edinburgh Sheriff Court, with the next highest volume of cases, achieved an average waiting period of 15.7 weeks.

238. These results are reflected in the cases we reviewed. In Glasgow, the waiting period was an average of 10.7 weeks, compared to 13.8 weeks in the Rest of Scotland. The waiting period may be shorter in the year up to January 2024 than in the cases we reviewed, because there appears to be a welcome general trend of the waiting period reducing in more recent months. This suggests that, in domestic abuse cases, the summary justice system is recovering from the pandemic.

239. The more positive results in Glasgow could be attributed to the existence of the Glasgow Domestic Abuse Court. Indeed, an evaluation of the Glasgow Domestic Abuse Court in 2007 found the court had impacted the speed of dealing with cases, with nearly three quarters of cases calling in the court reaching a trial diet in six weeks, compared to only one in eight in comparison courts.^[61]

240. Data from SCTS shows how summary domestic abuse cases are prioritised compared to other summary cases. Table 2 shows that domestic abuse cases were being prioritised both before and during the pandemic. We welcome the efforts COPFS and SCTS will have made, and continue to make, to prioritise domestic abuse cases.

Table 2 – Period (in weeks) until first available trial diet when plea made^[62]

241. The domestic abuse waiting period is a useful indicator of how quickly court business is progressing. It helps measure the prioritisation given to domestic abuse and performance in different courts and nationally. However, it only provides a partial picture of case journey times.^[63]

242. Many cases do not proceed at the first trial diet, and so the waiting period data gives no indication of the actual length of time cases take to conclude. From the point of view of the victim, the accused and any witnesses, a more helpful, additional indicator of the speed with which cases are managed would be the date the offence was reported to police, and the date the accused was reported to COPFS, to the date the case was concluded.

243. Where a domestic abuse case is adjourned at the first trial diet, we heard that in some areas, the case was no longer prioritised. Adjourned trial diets can be set months rather than weeks later. National data from SCTS shows the time between pleading diets and evidence-led trials for domestic cases is shorter than for other summary cases. For example, in 2021-22, the average length of time between the pleading diet and evidence-led trial in domestic cases was 36 weeks, compared to 52 weeks for non-domestic cases.^[64]

244. However, in the cases we reviewed, we noted substantial differences in how cases were scheduled for second and subsequent trial diets. In Glasgow, the average time between the first and second trial diets was 5.6 weeks, whereas it was 11.1 weeks in the Rest of Scotland and 19.9 weeks in Dundee. While we only reviewed 20 cases in each area, not all of which required a first and second trial diet, this data suggests that domestic abuse cases continue to be prioritised in the Glasgow Domestic Abuse Court, but to a lesser extent in other areas.

245. We appreciate COPFS cannot control how quickly trial diets are rescheduled by the courts. However, it was not clear to us the extent to which COPFS and its partners were monitoring and actioning overall journey time, as well as the 10-week waiting period. This would be a more person-centred and outcome-focused approach to measuring performance.

246. Public statements around the 10 or 12-week waiting period may give victims, the accused and the public the impression that this is the total journey time for domestic abuse cases where a trial is scheduled. Victims we interviewed described journey times as being much longer.

247. In the cases we reviewed, we calculated the average number of weeks from the date of receipt by COPFS of a report from the police, to the date the case was concluded.^[65] This average journey time data includes those cases where the accused pled guilty at the first calling of the case. We completed our case review in 2023 and 12 cases remained ongoing. We revisited those cases in February 2024 to gather further information about their journey time. Five cases were still ongoing. For the 55 cases that had concluded, the average journey time was 15.2 weeks. This ranged from zero weeks^[66] to 78.9 weeks. The average journey time in Glasgow was 12.9 weeks, compared to 14.8 weeks in the Rest of Scotland and 17.9 weeks in Dundee.

248. Of the five cases that were still ongoing, their journey times were all over one year (so far).

249. For some cases with very long journey times, there was little COPFS could have done to progress the case any faster. For example, some of these cases involved the accused failing to appear at court and warrants being taken for their arrest. Several victims we interviewed felt that the police made little effort to execute warrants, even when they passed on information about the whereabouts of the accused or when the accused appeared at court on other matters. However, in one case we reviewed where the warrant remained outstanding, the fault lay with COPFS rather than the police. In that case, COPFS decided not to pass the warrant to the police but to instead invite the accused to attend court. No invitation was sent.

250. Where journey times are prolonged, the need for COPFS to communicate with victims, to keep them updated on developments and to support them to remain engaged in the justice process is all the greater.

251. Although COPFS is contributing to the efficient progression of many cases, there is more that could be done by it and its partners to reduce overall journey times and deliver justice more quickly. Given the timing of our inspection, the pandemic will also have contributed in some part to efficient progression and the poor experience we heard about from some victims. However, from the evidence we gathered, we consider that factors listed below contribute to delays. These factors are not present in all cases, but across the summary justice system, they contribute to delay, wasted court time and poor victim experience:

• poor quality SPRs and premature police reporting to COPFS
• unclear or delayed instructions to the police about further enquiries and the submission of evidence
• the late submission of evidence by the police and the sometimes slow response to requests for further information or enquiries
• inadequate marking instructions
• insufficient time for case preparation
• inadequate case preparation, particularly failing to address issues at the earliest opportunity
• failing to provide appropriate support to victims who are not supportive of a prosecution or who are at risk of not supporting a prosecution
• failing to engage effectively with victims about going to court and special measures
• victims and witnesses failing to appear at court, sometimes due to missed or late citations
• the accused failing to appear at court
• the defence not receiving instructions and not submitting letters of engagement timeously
• setting unrealistic trial diets, when the case is particularly complex or when it is clear evidence such as forensic reports or transcripts of joint investigative interviews will not be ready on time.

252. Other factors which also contribute to delay are highlighted elsewhere in this report.

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.