The prosecution of domestic abuse cases at sheriff summary level

Scope and methodology

Scope

21. The aim of this inspection was to assess how well COPFS manages and prosecutes cases involving domestic abuse at sheriff summary level.

22. While some cases involving domestic abuse may be prosecuted in the High Court or before a sheriff and jury, we chose to focus our scrutiny on cases at sheriff summary level (that is, where the sheriff hears the case without a jury). This is where the majority of cases involving domestic abuse are prosecuted. Data published by the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) indicates that 95% of domestic abuse cases were heard at sheriff summary level. Indeed, domestic abuse cases make up a substantial proportion of the work of sheriff summary courts. In Quarter 2 of 2023-24:

• 21% of the total summary complaints registered in the sheriff court were domestic abuse cases
• domestic abuse cases accounted for 29% of sheriff summary trials called and 32% of sheriff summary trials in which evidence was led.^[16]

23. By narrowing our scope to cases prosecuted at sheriff summary level, we intended to focus our attention on the service provided by COPFS to the majority of domestic abuse victims.

24. We have examined COPFS’s standard approach to preparing and prosecuting domestic abuse cases at sheriff summary level, as well as assessing and comparing bespoke arrangements for managing domestic abuse cases:

• calling at the Glasgow Domestic Abuse Court, where dedicated resources are committed to improving the justice process
• falling within the remit of the summary case management pilot, taking into account its focus on facilitating advanced disclosure, early resolution, enhanced victim engagement and an accelerated trial process. Although the pilot was operating in Dundee, Hamilton and Paisley, we chose to focus our scrutiny on only one pilot site. This helped manage our own limited resources, and we selected Dundee for scrutiny based on early feedback that implementation of the pilot was progressing more quickly in that area than in others.

25. We sought to identify the features and characteristics of each of the three approaches (standard, Glasgow, Dundee) that contribute to well-prepared, efficiently progressed cases that better meet the needs of victims.

Glasgow Domestic Abuse Court

First established as a pilot in 2004, the Glasgow Domestic Abuse Court was set up in recognition of the need to address problems in dealing with domestic abuse through traditional courts. Initially, one specialist court heard all domestic abuse summary cases and dealt with first appearance custody cases, intermediate diets and trials, as well as sentencing. Various agencies allocated staff to work specifically in the court, including a prosecutor, sheriffs, a clerk and others. A court-based advocacy service (ASSIST) was also established at the same time. There are now two dedicated courts in Glasgow, and the way they have operated has evolved over the years. COPFS has continued to allocate prosecutors to the court. Those prosecutors now form the Glasgow Domestic Abuse Unit within COPFS.

The summary case management pilot

The pilot introduces a new approach to managing cases at summary level with the aim of reducing the number of cases that are set down for trial unnecessarily and reducing the volume of late pleas of guilty and late decisions on discontinuation, thereby reducing the adverse impact on victims and other witnesses. A key feature of the new approach is the early disclosure of key evidential material and early judicial case management.^[17] The pilot commenced in Dundee, Hamilton and Paisley on 5 September 2022, and is expected to run for 18 months. An interim evaluation of the pilot was published in November 2023.^[18]

26. We examined how well COPFS is fulfilling its obligations and commitments to victims in domestic abuse cases. This included how well COPFS keeps victims informed throughout the life of a case, how victims are engaged and involved in the justice process, and the extent to which COPFS takes steps to ensure victims are supported and protected. We also gave special consideration to child witnesses in domestic abuse cases. This was in light of the growing recognition of the impact of domestic abuse on children and the recent introduction of the statutory aggravation intended to reflect the harm caused to children by domestic abuse.

27. The key inspection questions we sought to answer were:

(1) How well does COPFS support its staff to prepare, manage and prosecute domestic abuse cases at sheriff summary level?

(2) How well does COPFS prepare, manage and prosecute domestic abuse cases at sheriff summary level?

(3) How efficiently are cases progressed by COPFS?

(4) How well does COPFS support and protect, and communicate and engage with, victims and child witnesses? To what extent is COPFS delivering a person-centred and trauma-informed service?

(5) To what extent does COPFS use quality assurance and other feedback mechanisms (such as feedback from victims or support organisations) to improve its approach to domestic abuse cases?

(6) How well does COPFS work with partner agencies at both a strategic and operational level to progress cases efficiently and to improve the experience of victims and child witnesses?

(7) How well are domestic abuse cases managed by COPFS in line with bespoke local arrangements, including cases falling within the Glasgow Domestic Abuse Court and the summary case management pilot? What are the key features and characteristics of these local arrangements that contribute to well-prepared, efficiently progressed cases that better meet the needs of victims?

Methodology

28. To support our inspection, we gathered evidence from a range of sources including:

• reviewing COPFS strategies, policies, guidance, procedures and other documentation relating to the management and prosecution of cases involving domestic abuse
• analysing data on domestic abuse cases
• observing the training available to COPFS staff
• observing court proceedings
• reviewing a sample of 60 cases involving domestic abuse charges
• interviewing over 60 COPFS staff involved in managing and prosecuting domestic abuse cases. This included senior leaders, prosecutors, those working in the VIA service and those in administrative roles
• interviewing stakeholders such as organisations offering support to those who experience domestic abuse, the police, sheriffs, clerks and defence agents.

29. We also sought to hear directly from people who had experience of domestic abuse and the justice process, as well as their advocacy workers. We engaged with 23 people who had experienced domestic abuse. This included 19 women and four men. We interviewed the majority in person or by phone, although some preferred to send us written information about their experiences.

30. All of the victims who shared their views and experiences with us had received support from a voluntary sector organisation. We are mindful that the experiences of those who received no additional support from specialist organisations are not reflected in this report. It is possible that some of those victims may have had a more positive experience of the justice process. It is also possible that some of those victims’ experiences may have been less positive, without additional support to navigate the process.

31. We have also drawn on recent research about domestic abuse victims’ experience of the justice system.^[19] Initially, the research helped inform the scope of our inspection and, latterly, it reinforced many of our own findings. In the research we reviewed, it was sometimes hard to pinpoint the exact role COPFS had played in victims’ overall experience and views on the justice system. Victims were sometimes unclear which justice agency was responsible for which part of the process. The justice system can seem complex and opaque to those not familiar with it.

32. While it is the responsibility of all justice agencies to address victims’ concerns about the system, our own statutory mandate is limited to the service provided by COPFS. Interviewing victims directly therefore gave us an opportunity to ask questions focused on the role of COPFS. However, we encountered the same challenges as were evident in the research – victims were not always able to pinpoint who had provided a good service, or who they felt had let them down. Our knowledge of COPFS policies, procedures and staff meant that we were sometimes – but not always – able to resolve this.

33. We have benefited from interviews and focus groups with more than 50 advocacy workers, around a quarter of whom worked specifically with children. This included advocacy workers from ASSIST, Dundee ASSIST, EDDACS and Children 1^st, as well as from various services operated by Sacro, including its Caledonian Women and Children’s Service, Aura, FearFree and Aditi.^[20] These advocacy workers provide a range of support to victims of domestic abuse, including support through the justice process. Their feedback on the service provided to victims, including their views on working with COPFS, has been invaluable.

Case review

34. The purpose of our case review was to gain a better understanding of how cases involving domestic abuse are prepared, managed and prosecuted by COPFS, and to assess how and to what extent domestic abuse policy is being implemented in practice. Our findings helped us identify areas for discussion during our interviews. Our findings are also highlighted throughout this report.

35. We reviewed a random sample of 60 cases involving domestic abuse that were marked for proceedings at sheriff summary level. This included:

• 20 cases falling within the remit of the Glasgow Domestic Abuse Court
• 20 cases falling within the remit of the summary case management pilot at Dundee Sheriff Court
• 20 cases from across Scotland, but excluding those from Glasgow, Dundee and the other summary case management pilot sites at Hamilton and Paisley. This sample will be referred to throughout this report as the ‘Rest of Scotland’ sample.

36. The Glasgow and Rest of Scotland cases were randomly selected from all cases reported to COPFS between 1 July 2022 and 30 September 2022 which had a domestic abuse identifier and which had a first substantive marking that a prosecution should take place at sheriff summary level. We chose this sample period in the expectation that most cases would have concluded by the time we commenced reviewing them in May 2023. We reviewed the progress of these cases until July 2023. At that stage, three Glasgow cases and two cases from the Rest of Scotland had not yet concluded.^[21]

37. The summary case management pilot began in September 2022, and early challenges were only resolved in January 2023.^[22] For that reason, the Dundee cases we reviewed were randomly selected from a later sample period of 1 January 2023 to 31 March 2023. We hoped this would help us get a better picture of how the cases were being managed once the pilot was operating as intended, although we appreciate that the pilot was still in relative infancy at that stage. We reviewed the Dundee cases between August and September 2023. At the end of our review, seven Dundee cases had not yet concluded.

38. In each of the 60 cases, we noted the main charge in the Standard Prosecution Report submitted by the police to COPFS.^[23] We deemed the main charge to be the one that would result in the most severe penalty. The most frequently occurring main charge was common assault (18 cases).

Table 1 – Main charge in cases reviewed

39. The number of charges in each case ranged from one to six:

• in 34 cases, the accused was charged with one offence
• in 12 cases, there were two charges
• in six cases, there were three charges
• in six cases, there were four charges
• in two cases, there were six charges.

40. Each of the 60 cases featured one accused person. The accused was male in 51 (85%) cases and female in nine (15%) cases. In 25 (42%) cases, the accused had previous convictions relating to domestic abuse.

41. Half of the accused were reported to COPFS while they were in police custody. A further 26 (43%) accused were reported to COPFS having been released by the police on an undertaking to appear at court on a specified date. In four (7%) cases, the accused was reported to COPFS but was neither in custody nor had an undertaking to appear at court.

42. One of the 60 cases featured two victims, meaning there were 61 victims in total. Fifty (82%) victims were female, and 11 (18%) were male. In the case with two victims, one victim was the partner of the accused and the second was their child.

43. At the point we finished reviewing the cases:

• in 34 (57%), the accused had pled guilty
• in seven (12%), a decision had been taken to take no further proceedings, to not call or to discontinue the case
• in three (5%), the accused had been acquitted at trial
• in three (5%), the case had been deserted simpliciter
• in one (2%), the accused pled not guilty and this was accepted
• 12 (20%) cases were still ongoing.^[25]

44. More detailed findings about the results of our case review are included throughout this report. This includes information about the progress and outcome of the cases, how they were managed, and what steps were taken to communicate with, support and protect victims and child witnesses.