The prosecution of domestic abuse cases at sheriff summary level

Working in partnership

509. To manage and prosecute cases involving domestic abuse effectively, to progress cases efficiently and to improve the experience of victims and child witnesses, COPFS must work with various partners. This includes its statutory partners such as the police and SCTS, as well as a range of organisations providing support to victims. Good partnership working is required nationally and locally, and at strategic and operational levels.

510. We heard that COPFS engages well with its national partners in their efforts to address domestic abuse. COPFS is represented, for example, on the Joint Strategic Board for Equally Safe, the national strategy to prevent and address violence against women and girls. The designation of a lead prosecutor for domestic abuse provides a helpful focal point through which partner organisations can engage with COPFS about domestic abuse. This can be particularly helpful for support organisations who may lack other formal mechanisms through which they can raise issues. The National Lead for Domestic Abuse regularly engages with support organisations and has, for example, contributed to training for independent domestic abuse advocates.

511. We also heard about effective working relationships between COPFS and Police Scotland in particular. This includes the National Lead for Domestic Abuse taking part in Police Scotland’s quarterly, multi-agency domestic abuse forum and working alongside the police to keep the joint protocol on domestic abuse under review. The National Lead for Domestic Abuse and other COPFS representatives also regularly engage with the police in other ways, such as feeding back any issues relating to the quality of police reports, working together to implement new legislation such as the 2018 Act, and taking part in police training around domestic abuse. This latter activity is reciprocated, with specialist police officers taking part in domestic abuse training delivered to COPFS staff. The ongoing liaison between COPFS and the police has established effective working relationships between the two organisations and allows any issues with the investigation, reporting and prosecution of domestic abuse cases to be raised and addressed.

512.COPFS also requires to work with its partners locally. Sheriffs we spoke to were generally positive about efforts made by COPFS to work with local partners to manage cases efficiently and to support the justice process. At one court, we observed various types of proceedings involving domestic abuse over a number of days, and noted that the prosecutors had good relationships with defence agents, sheriffs, clerks and other organisations working in the court building.

513. Outside of court however, feedback about local partnership working, particularly with support organisations, was more variable. Some support organisations described regular meetings with a local procurator fiscal or VIA representative (sometimes both). These provided a useful forum in which to raise and resolve local issues or discuss specific cases. They were also sometimes used to discuss upcoming court business and to ensure all necessary arrangements were in place to support victims and witnesses. In contrast, other support organisations found it more difficult to raise local issues with COPFS.

514. During our inspection, we attended a national meeting of local Violence Against Women Partnerships.^[101] When asked about their local engagement with COPFS, the response was mixed. Some noted that a COPFS representative attended their local partnership, while others said they had regular engagement with their local procurator fiscal outside of partnership meetings and that this was sufficient. One area noted that a VIA representative contributed to their partnership. In contrast, some said they struggled to engage their procurator fiscal in local issues and would welcome more engagement, even if only through ad hoc activities such as training.

515. One theme that arose during our discussion with both COPFS staff and partner organisations was that some relationships that had been effective and productive prior to the pandemic had fallen away. While we heard that work was being done to reinstate those relationships in some areas, there was clearly still more work to be done in others.

516. Support organisations also spoke to us about barriers to more effective partnership working with COPFS. One of the most commonly mentioned barriers was the accessibility and responsiveness of COPFS at an operational level. They found it hard to contact a prosecutor or VIA when needed.^[102] They often did not get a response timeously or at all. Support organisations often had to make contact through Enquiry Point in order to reach the person they needed, and found this frustrating. They expected that, as professional colleagues, direct contact information should be more forthcoming.

517. Other barriers to more effective partnership working included a lack of awareness and understanding among some advocacy workers and COPFS staff about each other’s role and processes, and the attitudes of some COPFS staff towards advocacy workers. This latter point was evident in our own discussions with a small but concerning number of COPFS staff. Rather than viewing advocacy workers as playing a key role in supporting domestic abuse victims through the justice process, they were seen as causing additional work or stepping on VIA’s toes. This was in contrast to the views expressed by the majority of COPFS staff we interviewed – they considered that advocacy workers had become an integral part of the justice process and that their contribution was invaluable.

518. One barrier to more partnership working highlighted by COPFS staff themselves was a lack of resources. They felt they lacked capacity to engage in more joint work with other organisations.

519. In one area, we heard that some of these barriers were overcome or mitigated by the co-location of services. The sharing of office space meant that COPFS, the police, court staff and advocacy workers had better relationships, were more accessible to one another and shared information more easily.

520. In some areas, we heard that opportunities for prosecutors and VIA staff to shadow domestic abuse advocacy and support workers, and for those workers to shadow VIA staff, had been hugely beneficial. All those who had participated in shadowing were positive about their experience. They felt that it helped build relationships across organisations, improved their understanding of each organisation’s role and how they could help each other, provided an opportunity to discuss issues and processes, facilitated future contact about issues or specific cases, and provided them with a new perspective on managing domestic abuse cases and supporting victims. Some of those we interviewed wanted to have shadowing opportunities, but felt constrained by a lack of time. As noted at paragraph 64, shadowing a domestic abuse advocacy organisation should form part of the training for accredited domestic abuse prosecutors but this had fallen away during the pandemic. Given the value placed on shadowing by those who have experienced it, COPFS should ensure domestic abuse prosecutors shadow an advocacy organisation before achieving their accreditation. Shadowing should also form part of the professional development of VIA staff.

521. Given the strategic importance of domestic abuse, the volume of domestic abuse cases dealt with by COPFS and the need to safeguard public confidence in how such cases are managed, COPFS should consider reviewing its approach to partnership working in the domestic abuse context. Drawing on good practice already in place in some areas, this should include consideration of:

• what partnerships are critical to the effective and efficient management and prosecution of domestic abuse cases, and ensuring staff have the capacity and skills to develop and sustain those partnerships
• how COPFS engages with local strategic partnerships, taking into account its status as a national organisation and the need to make best use of its resources
• how partner organisations can easily raise issues with COPFS, and whether there is any role for external partners in internal governance arrangements (such as the domestic abuse forum suggested at paragraph 506).

Summary case management pilot

522. The design and implementation of the summary case management pilot has been overseen by a Pilot Project Board, chaired by a Sheriff Principal. COPFS is represented on the board, alongside a range of other partners including the police, SCTS, the Law Society of Scotland, the Scottish Legal Aid Board and the Scottish Government. Each of the three pilot sites has a Local Implementation Group which monitors local delivery of the pilot. COPFS is represented on each of the local groups and has invested significant resource in supporting the pilot’s aims.

523. We interviewed key partners about COPFS’s contribution to the pilot, and we observed a meeting of the Local Implementation Group in Dundee. We heard very positive feedback about the role of COPFS in the pilot, including from sheriffs and other partners. We also observed the collaborative approach taken by COPFS and its partners in Dundee to monitoring implementation of the pilot, discussing progress and seeking further improvements. The partners had developed positive cross-agency relationships and were working well together to deliver a shared vision. One member of a partner agency told us that the pilot was one of the best examples of collaborative working he had seen, and that good communication between the partners had been key to the progress being made. This sentiment was echoed in the pilot’s interim evaluation, which noted strong cohesion between all justice partners in Dundee.^[103]